Mark N. Wright and Erica Y. Wright - Page 30

                                       - 30 -                                         
          1999 and 2000.24  Accordingly, the Court sustains respondent’s              
          determination on this issue.25                                              
               C. Section 6663 Penalty                                                
               In any case involving the issue of fraud with intent to                
          evade tax, respondent bears the burden of proof as to that issue.           
          Sec. 7454(a).  The burden of proof must be carried by clear and             
          convincing evidence.  Rule 142(b).  Section 6663(a) imposes a               
          penalty of “an amount equal to 75 percent of the portion of the             
          underpayment which is attributable to fraud.”  Section 6663(b)              
          specifies that if any portion of the underpayment is attributable           


               24The notice of deficiency apparently calculates                       
          petitioners’ 1999 sec. 6651(a)(1) addition to tax based on an               
          Aug. 15, 2000, due date despite petitioners’ failure to                     
          reasonably estimate their tax liability on their request for an             
          extension.  The notice of deficiency calculates petitioners’ 2000           
          sec. 6651(a)(1) addition to tax based on an Oct. 15, 2001, due              
          date, respondent having granted petitioners’ second request for             
          an extension despite petitioners’ failure to reasonably estimate            
          their tax liability on their first request for an extension.                
          Respondent failed to raise these issues in his answer and only              
          subsequently raised them on brief.                                          
               25The Court sustains respondent’s determinations in the                
          notice of deficiency.  See supra note 24.  The Court notes that             
          because 25 percent is the maximum addition to tax allowed under             
          sec. 6651(a)(1), the validity of the extension request is moot              
          for petitioners’ 1999 taxable year (petitioners filed their 1999            
          return on Nov. 23, 2001, which is more than 15 months late using            
          an Aug. 15, 2000, due date and more than 19 months late using an            
          Apr. 15, 2000, due date).  The Court concludes, based on                    
          respondent’s granting petitioners’ second request for an                    
          extension, respondent’s claim in the notice of deficiency, and              
          respondent’s failure to raise this issue before trial which may             
          have prejudiced petitioners, that petitioners are liable for only           
          a 10-percent sec. 6651(a)(1) addition to tax for their 2000                 
          taxable year.                                                               





Page:  Previous  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011