- 26 -
independent of the Hoyt organization for review. Accord Hansen
v. Commissioner, supra at 1031. While petitioner attempted to
excuse his lack of due care by alleging that he tried but was
unable to find such an independent professional, we decline to
find this testimony as a fact. Petitioner’s lack of due care for
1991 is further seen by noting that his return claimed a tax
refund for that year even though he knew that respondent was
investigating at least one of the Hoyt partnerships.
We conclude that petitioner’s underpayment of tax for 1991
was the result of negligence.8 Thus, petitioner is liable for
the 20-percent accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(b)(1)
for 1991 unless he meets the section 6664(c) exception for
reasonable cause and good faith.
4. Claimed Defenses to the Accuracy-Related Penalties
a. Honest Misunderstanding of Fact
Petitioner argues that his underpayments of tax for 1989 and
1991 resulted from an honest mistake of fact because he was
defrauded by Hoyt, he had insufficient information concerning his
participation in TBS 89-1, and all available evidence supported
7(...continued)
through 1991 returns claimed partnership losses from the Hoyt
organization totaling $220,385.
8 Because we have concluded that petitioner’s underpayment
of tax for 1991 was attributable to negligence, we do not
consider whether the underpayment also was attributable to a
substantial understatement of income tax.
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007