- 33 -
2001), unless the taxpayer can establish that such failure is due
to reasonable cause and not willful neglect. In the notice of
deficiency, respondent asserted that petitioners were liable for
a section 6651(a)(1) addition to tax of $38,837. In the
amendment to answer, respondent asserted an increased section
6651(a)(1) addition to tax of $100,571, based on the asserted
increased deficiency.
Respondent bears the burden of production with respect to
petitioners’ liability for the section 6651(a)(1) addition to
tax. See sec. 7491(c); Higbee v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 438,
446-447 (2001). To meet his burden of production, respondent
must come forward with sufficient evidence indicating that it is
appropriate to impose the addition to tax. See Higbee v.
Commissioner, supra at 446-447. Respondent has met his burden of
production because the parties stipulated that petitioners’ 2000
Federal income tax return was filed on May 19, 2003, more than 25
months after it was due.
Once respondent meets his burden of production, petitioners
bear the burden of proving that their failure to timely file was
due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect.19 To show
19 Respondent bears the burden of proof with regard to any
increased deficiency. See Rule 142(a). However, the amount of
the sec. 6651(a)(1) addition to tax is a computational matter
based on the amount of tax due. To the extent respondent bears
the burden of proving an increased sec. 6651(a)(1) addition to
tax, respondent has met this burden because, as discussed supra,
(continued...)
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011