§6651(a) — Addition to the tax

Aubuchon’s income as determined in the NOD and sustain, in part, and overrule, in part, the increased deficiency respondent asserted in his Amendments to Answer.

485, 493 (2017), supplementing and overruling in part 147 T.C.

485, 493 (2017), supplementing and overruling in part 147 T.C.

485, 493–94 (2017), supplementing and overruling in part 147 T.C.

Respondent objects, urging us to overrule our decision in Robinette v.

485, 493 (2017), supplementing and overruling in part 147 T.C.

With this amendment, Congress explicitly sought to overrule our holding in Estate ofYoung and clarify that the Tax Court hasjurisdiction over additions to tax under section 6651(a)(2) "for failure to pay an amount shown on the return where the Tax Court already hasjurisdiction to redetermine a deficiency in tax with respect to that return."3 See H.R.

The Court overruled petitioner's objections, and the SFR was taken into evidence.

20, 2017), supplementing and overruling in part 147 T.C.

In so doing, we overruled precedent holding ÇÉat we must first look behind the determination to see whether a proper hearing was offered in order to have jurisdiction.] See Meyer v.

Further, the document does not distinguish between the section 6651(a)(1) addition to tax subject to deficiency procedures in Docket No.

Section 6651(a)(1) Addition to Tax Respondent bears the burden of producing sufficient evidence to show that it is appropriate to impose the addition to tax. See § 7491(c); Wheeler v. Commissioner, 127 T.C. 200, 206 (2006), aff’d, 521 F.3d 1289 (10th Cir. 2008); Higbee, 116 T.C. at 446–47.12 Generally, once the Commissioner meets the burden of production under section 7491(c), the taxpayer bears the burden of proving the addition to tax does not apply because of reasonable cause or other exculpa

We think that is distinguishable from the other petitioners’ section 6651 defenses.

As noted above, the failure-to-file addition to tax imposed by section 6651(a)(1) applies to a failure to file, among other things, a return required by section 6011 (including a Form 8804). The section 6651(a)(1) addition to tax does not apply to returns required to be filed under the authority of part III of subchapter A of chapter 61.

Section 6651(a)(1) Failure to Timely File Section 6651(a)(1) imposes an addition to tax for a taxpayer’s failure to file a required return on or before the specified filing date, including extensions. As explained supra note 2, the Estate bears the burden of proof with respect to its liability for the addition to tax. See Estate of Jackson, T.C. Memo. 2021-48, at *248; Estate of Ramirez, T.C. Memo. 2018-196, at *32. The addition to tax is inapplicable if the taxpayer’s failure to file the return

Section 6651(a)(1) imposes an addition to tax for failure to file a timely tax return. The addition equals 5% of the amount required to be shown as tax on the delinquent return for each month or fraction thereof during which the return remains delinquent, up to a maximum addition of 25% for returns more than four months delinquent. Id. The addition to tax does not apply if the failure to file timely is due to reasonable cause and not to willful neglect.

The taxpayer can show that he did not act with “willful neglect” if he can “prove that the late filing did not result from 3 This case is distinguishable from prior cases—e.g., involving car dealerships, construction companies, and companies engaged in the sale and leasing of aircraft— in which we found car or motorcycle racing expenses to be deductible advertising costs.

Addition to Tax Section 6651(a)(1) provides for an addition to tax of 5% of the tax required to be shown on the return for each month or fraction thereof for which there is a failure to file the return, not to exceed 25% in toto. Respondent determined an addition to tax under this provision. Re- spondent has met his burden of production, see § 7491(c), because we have found that petitioner failed to file a return for 2013. The addition to tax for failure to file does not apply if “it is shown th

Section 6651(a)(1) Additions to Tax Section 6651(a)(1) imposes an addition to tax for failure to file a timely tax return. The addition equals 5% of the amount required to be shown as tax on the delinquent return for each month or fraction thereof during which the return remains delinquent, up to a maximum addition of 25% for returns more than four months delinquent. Id. The addition to tax does not apply if the failure to file timely is due to reasonable cause and not to willful neglect.

Petitioner argues that if she is liable for the underlying tax, she should not be liable for the section 6651(a)(2) addition to tax because of the disclosure with her return that she claimed a foreign tax credit under the Treaties and the substantiality of her legal argument. The addition to tax does not apply if the failure to pay is due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect.

Addition to Tax for Failure To File Return Timely Section 6651(a)(1) imposes an addition to tax for failure to file a timely tax return. The addition equals 5% of the amount required to be shown as tax on the delinquent return for each month or fraction thereof during which the return remains delinquent, up to a maximum addition of 25% for returns more than four months delinquent. Id. The addition to tax does not apply if the failure to file timely is due to reasonable cause and not to willful n

Revised Deficiencies and Additions to Tax Respondent determined that petitioner was liable for an addition to tax for each year under either section 6651(a)(1) (for failure to file a timely return) or section 6651(f) (which imposes an increased addition to tax when a taxpayer's failure to file is fraudulent). Respondent has since conceded that the section 6651(f) addition to tax does not apply.

Section 6651(a)(1) Addition to Tax for Failure To File Return Section 6651(a)(1) provides for an addition to tax in the case ofa failure to file a return on or before the specified filing date. Section 6651(a)(1) does not apply ifthe failure to file is due to reasonable cause and not to willful neglect.

But bank records alone don't show what section 274(d) - 29 - [*29] requires, or even what we need to distinguish an expense ofone business from an expense ofanother. They cannot take this deduction either. This means the Bacas may not take any oftheir contested Schedule C deductions. II. Penalties The last issue for us to resolve is whether the Bacas are liable for penalties. There are two--a section 6651(a)(1) late-filing penalty for 2013, and a section 6662(a) accuracy-related penalty for eac

Unlike section 6651(a)(1) and (2), section 6654 contains no provision relating to reasonable cause and lack ofwillful neglect.

Additions to Tax Respondent determined that petitioner is liable for additions to tax under section 6651(a)(1) for failure to file timely returns for 2009 and 2010. Petitioner, 6 Sec. 280A(c)(1) provides that an expense that is allocable to a portion of the taxpayer's dwelling that is used exclusively on a regular basis as the taxpayer's principal place ofbusiness will be allowed as a deduction. Sec. 280A(c)(1) does not apply in this case as petitioner's garage was not exclusively used as his pr

On the record before us, we find that respondent has satisfied respondent's burden ofproduction under section 7491(c) with respect to the addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1) that respondent determined. The addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1) does not apply ifthe failure to file timely is due to reasonable cause and not to willful neglect.

at 2 (concerning a Form 940 liability "for the year ended December 31, 2001"), and therefore the reference to December 2010 to indicate petitioner's 2010 Form 940 liability is not inapposite.

Both cases are distinguishable from the case before us.

Section 6651(a)(1) Section 6651(a)(1) imposes an addition to tax for failure to timely file a Federal tax return when due equal to 5% for each month that the return is late, not to exceed 25%. The addition to tax for failure to file timely does not apply where the failure was due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect.

Failure To Pay Tax Reported on Return Section 6651(a)(2) provides for an addition to tax in the case ofa failure to timely pay the amount shown as tax on a return. The addition to tax does not apply ifthe taxpayer's failure to do so was due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect.

Section 6651(a) Section 6651(a)(1) imposes an addition to tax for failure to file timely a tax return. The addition to tax for failure to file under section 6651(a)(1) does not apply ifthe failure to file timely is due to reasonable cause, and not due to willful neglect.

Unlike Chow I, this is not a close case. Based upon our examination ofthe entire record before us, we find that Ms. Chow has failed to carry her burden ofestablishingthat she engaged in her 2006 gambling activities, 2007 gambling activities, and 2008 gambling activities with an actual and honest objective ofmaking a profit. We turn next to the issues presented under sections 6651(a)(1) and 6662(a).

New matterrelating to liability forpenalty The Commissioner acknowledges that, unlike the additions to tax for failure to file timely under section 6651(a)(1),32 the section 6662(a) accuracy-related 3'The language quoted above from the notice ofdeficiency issued to Mrs.

On the record before us, we find that respondent has satisfied respondent's burden ofproduction under section 7491(c) with respect to the addition to tax un- der section 6651(a)(1) that respondent determined for petitioner's taxable year 2007. The addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1) does not apply ifthe failure to file timely is due to reasonable cause, and not due to willful neglect.

New matterrelating to liability forpenalty The Commissioner acknowledges that, unlike the additions to tax for failure to file timely under section 6651(a)(1),32 the section 6662(a) accuracy-related 3'The language quoted above from the notice ofdeficiency issued to Mrs.

Petitioner did not contest the section 6651(a)(1) and (2) and 6654 additions to tax. Subject to adjustment to reflect respondent's concessions, we sustain respondent's determinations. See Rule 34(b)(4); Swain v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 358, 362-365 (2002). 2Pursuant to sec. 7491(a), the burden ofproofmay shift to the Commissioner ifthe taxpayer introduces credible evidence with respect to any factual issue. This section is inapplicable because petitioner failed to maintain records and substantiat

As with the section 6651(a)(1) addition to tax previously discussed, respondent bears the burden ofproduction with respect to the imposition ofa section 6662(a) accuracy-relatedpenalty. See sec. 7491(c). The section 6662(a) accuracy-related penalty does not apply to any portion ofan underpayment as to which there was reasonable cause and the taxpayer acted in good faith.

We sustain respondent's determinations (as amended) as to the imposition ofthe section 6651(a)(1) additions to tax. Respondent concedes that the section 6654 addition to tax does not apply for 1992.

As withthe addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1), the burden of production with respect to the imposition ofthe section 6662(a) penalty rests with the Commissioner. Sec. 7491(c). Petitioners failed to maintain adequate substantiating records for many of the deductions claimed on their 2003 return. According to respondent, that failurejustifies the imposi ion ofa section 6662(a) accuracy-relatedpenalty upon the ground ofnegligence. We agree. The accuracy-relatedpenalty does not apply to any pa

Addition to Tax Under Section 6651(a)(1) In the case ofa failure to file a tax return on the date prescribed for filing, section 6651(a)(1) imposes an addition to tax equal to 5 percent ofthe amount required to be shown in the return, with an additional 5 percent to be added for each month or partial month during which such failure continues, not to exceed 25 percent in the aggregate. The addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1) does not apply ifit is shown that the failure to file was due to re

6651(a)(2) addition to tax does not apply for 1995.

Crouse for their taxable year 2001 for the addition to tax under section 6651(a) (1) and the accuracy-rel-ated penalty under section 6662 (a). Section 6651(a) (1) imposes an addition to tax -for failure to file timely a return.22 The addition to tax under section 6651(a) (1) does not apply if the failure to file timely is due to reasonable cause, and not to willful neglect.

Year Deficiency 6651(a) (1) 6651(f) 6662(a) 6663 1997 $46,587 $11,647 --- --- $34,940 1998 62,094 --- 1$46,571 $12,419 --- The notice of deficiency states that if it is determined that the sec. 6651(f) addition to tax is inapplicable, the sec.

- 8 - respect to the addition to tax under section 6651(a) (1) that respondent determined in the 2005 notice . The addition to tax under section 6651(a) (1) does not apply f the failure to file timely is due to reasonable cause, and not due to willful neglect .

Section 6651(a)(1) Addition to,Tax 9 Section 6651(a)(1) imposes an addition to tax for failure to file timely a return .10 The addition to tax under section 665.1(a)(1) does not apply if the failure to file timely is due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect .

Addition to Tax Under Section 6651(a)(1) and Accuracy-Related Penalty Under Section 6662(a ) Respondent determined that petitioner is liable for the addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1) and the accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a) . Section 6651(a)(1) imposes an addition to tax for failure to file timely a tax return . The addition to tax under that section does not apply if the failure to file timely is due to reasonable cause, and not willful neglect .

We first address the addition to tax under section 6651(a)(2) . Section 6651(a)(2) imposes an addition to tax for failure to pay tax shown on a return on or before the payment due date . The addition to tax is one-half percent of the amount shown as tax on a return for each month or fraction thereof during which the failure to pay continues, not exceeding 25 percent in the aggregate . Sec . 6651(a)(2) . The addition to tax under section 6651(a)(2) does not apply, however, if the failure is due t

On the basis of our holding and a concession by respondent that section 6651(a) is inapplicable if petitioner is entitled to deduct its expenses, we also hold without further discussion that petitioner is not 5 Petitioner also makes numerous other arguments which are pertinent only if the disputed regulations are valid.

Unlike section 6651(a), there is no broadly applicable reasonable cause exception to the section 6654 addition to tax; 8 generally, it is mandatory, and extenuating circumstances are irrelevant.

The final issue is the addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1) for the late filing of petitioners’ Federal income tax return for 2001. This addition to tax does not apply if the taxpayer can show that the failure to file timely was due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect.

Addition to Tax Section 6651(a)(1) imposes an addition to tax for a taxpayer’s failure to file a required return on or before the specified filing due date, including extensions. Section 6651(a)(2) imposes an addition to tax for failing to pay an amount shown on a return. An addition to tax under either section 6651(a)(1) or (2) is inapplicable, however, if the - 32 - taxpayer’s failure to file the return was due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect.

Petitioners argue that the Court's statements in Downing, as quoted above, "could be construed as anticipatory of the precise issue before the [Court]." Because the penalties involved in the present cases are readily distinguishable from the additions to tax involved in Downihq, we disagree.

Petitioners argue that the Court's statements in Downing, as quoted above, "could be construed as anticipatory of the precise issue before the [Codrt]." Because the penalties involved in the present cases are re(dily distinguishable from the additions to tax involved in Downing, we disagree.

6651(a)(1). An addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1) is inapplicable, however, if the taxpayer’s failure to file the return was due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect.

Additions to Tax Section 6651(a)(1) imposes an addition to tax for a taxpayer’s failure to file a required return on or before the specified filing date, including extensions. The amount of the liability is based upon a percentage of the tax required to be shown on the return. Sec. 6651(a)(1). The addition to tax is inapplicable, however, if the taxpayer’s failure to file the - 14 - return was due to “reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect”.

163, 170 (2003) (a return prepared by the Secretary under section 6020(b) treated as a return filed by the taxpayer for purposes of determining the addition to tax under section 6651(a)(2)); Spurlock v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-124 (same); Janpol v. Commissioner, 102 T.C. 499, 501-502 (1994) (Beard does not apply in determining period of limitations for purposes of the tax imposed by section 4975 because section 6501(l)(1) specifically references a return that does not require all the infor

Section 6651(a) Addition to Tax Respondent also determined that petitioner is liable for an addition to tax for 1991 under section 6651(a)(1) for its failure to file a timely return. Section 6651(a)(1) imposes an addition to tax of 5 percent of the tax due for each month a return is delinquent, not to exceed 25 percent. The addition does not apply if the failure to timely file is due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect.

6654(a).] Unlike section 6651, the liability for the addition to tax under section 6654 does not depend on a lack of reasonable cause or the presence of willful neglect. Petitioner has the burden of establishing that the additions to tax should not apply. Rule 142(a). Petitioner essentially contends that since respondent erroneously applied section 874(a) to disallow the deductions, there is neither an "amount [of tax] required to be shown", sec. 6651(a), nor an "underpayment of estimated tax",

In Form 11369, Confidential Evaluation Report on Claim for Award, RA Jackson confirmed his reliance on the 2 Because of our holding herein, we need not decide whether the “proceeds in dispute” exceeded $2 million pursuant to section 7623(b)(5)(B).

We need not decide whether she might have shown “reasonable cause” by filing a Form 4720 at some point before the RA prepared the substitute Form 4720 in May 2018.

trade or business) and (2) whether, to the extent GMM is subject to tax, GMM is liable for additions to tax under section 6651(a)(1) and (2) and for a penalty pursuant to section 6662(a) (we hold that GMM is not liable for any additions to tax or penalty).2 2We need not decide the effect ofthe U.S.-Greece tax treaty--Convention for the Avoidance ofDouble Taxation and the Prevention ofFiscal Evasion with respect to Taxes on Income, Greece-U.S., February 20, 1950, T.I.A.S.

Section 6651(a)(1) Section 6651(a)(1) provides for an addition to tax in the event a taxpayer fails to file a timely return (determined with regard to any extension oftime for 3Because ofour finding on this point, we need not decide whether petitioner met the "bona fide resident" or "physical presence" test ofsec.

In this case, it is unclear whether respondent bears any burden of production under section 7491(c) because it is not clear whetherthe examination commenced after July 22, 1998, the effective date ofsection 7491.

We therefore need not decide other issues relating to the deficiencies and additions to tax because the limitations period for assessmenthas expired.

Verchota as petitioner's brother ; however, because of the different surnames, we are not sure whether he is petitioner's brother, stepbrother, or brother-in-law .

We are not convinced that the reasons for petitioner’s failure to file or pay taxes changed after mid-1999.

Commissioner, supra, dealt with situations where Congress did not impose any specific limitation on section 6020(b)(2) with respect to the Code sections involved, and we are not prepared to say that those cases were incorrectly decided.

The IRS also assessed additions to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) for failure to timely file the tax return and section 6651(a)(2) for failure to timely pay the tax; a section 6656 penalty for failure to make deposit of taxes; and statutory interest.

Additions to Tax Pursuant to Section 6651(a)(1) Section 6651(a)(1) provides for an addition to tax for failure to file a timely return, in the amount of 5% of the tax required to be shown on a return for each month (or fraction thereof) a return is late, not to exceed 25% in the aggregate.

For the same reasons, we hold that this Court has jurisdiction to consider the imposition of additions to tax for failure to file under section 6651(a)(1), fraudulent failure to file under section 6651(f), failure to pay under section 6651(a)(2), and failure to make estimated tax payments under section 6654(a).

By notice dated May 13, 2021 (2015 Notice), respondent determined a deficiency of $46,079 and an addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1)1 for failure to timely file of $11,948.50 for petitioner’s 2015 tax year.

On March 15, 2023, the IRS determined a deficiency of $588,906, an addition to tax of $164,389 pursuant to section 6651(a)(1), and a penalty of $117,444 pursuant to section 6662(a).

Spenlinhauer (estate) is liable for an estate tax deficiency of Served 12/30/25 2 [*2] $3,984,344, an addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1)1 of $996,086, and an accuracy-related penalty pursuant to section 6662(a) and (b)(5) of $524,520 and (2) Robert J.

petitioners were entitled to an increased child tax credit for 2004, an increased recovery rebate for 2008, and an increased make Served 04/17/25 2 [*2] Notice of Deficiency dated September 14, 2012, the IRS determined the following deficiencies in petitioners’ federal income tax, additions to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1),2 and accuracy-related penalties pursuant to section 6662(a) for the years at issue: Additions to Tax / Penalties Year Deficiency § 6651(a)(1) § 6662(a) 2004 $10,155 $2,

We hold they did; 2.

In OPINION Part VII, we hold that the Fraziers received $24,425 in Schedule E income, $1,545 in ordinary dividends, and $4,636 in qualified dividends in 2012.

The IRS also determined an addition to tax, pursuant to section 6651(a)(1), of $933 for 2018, and accuracy-related penalties, 1 Unless otherwise indicated, statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code, Title 26 U.S.C.

Henry is not liable for the greater addition to tax under section 6651(f), we hold that he is liable instead for the lesser addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1).

Served 01/23/24 2 [*2] (4) the Frys are liable for the late filing addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1), and (5) the Frys are liable for the accuracy-related penalty pursuant to section 6662(a) and (b)(2) for a substantial understatement of income tax.

Respondent also imposed an addition to tax for late payment, pursuant to section 6651(a)(2), and interest charges.

and 2012; (3) failed to report gross receipts from his business as income for 2017; (4) is entitled to head of household filing status for 2017; (5) is entitled to the additional child tax credit for 2017; (6) is entitled to the earned income tax credit for 2017; (7) is liable for additions to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) for all years at issue; (8) is liable for an addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(2) for 2017; and (9) is liable for accuracy- related penalties pursuant to sectio

We hold they did as set forth herein; (2) whether Mr.

As a result of the adjustments to the incomes of Cedar Valley Bird and TARD Properties, which flowed through to petitioners, respondent determined a deficiency of $166,474 for petitioners’ 2005 tax year, an addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) of $41,618.50, and an accuracy-related penalty pursuant to section 6662 of $33,294.80.

1 Respondent conceded the additions to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) after the Stipulation of Settled Issues was agreed to by the parties.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION ASHFORD, Judge: By statutory notice of deficiency dated February 14, 2019, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS or respondent) determined deficiencies in petitioners’ federal income tax, additions to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1),1 and accuracy-related penalties pursuant to section 6662(a) for the 2015–17 taxable years (years at issue) as follows: 1 Unless otherwise indicated, statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code, Title 26 U.S.C., in eff

We hold that (1) the deductions at issue are properly deductible by petitioners as unreimbursed employee expenses, reportable on Schedules A, Itemized Deductions, of their Forms 1040, U.S.

Because we hold that Zaimes did not have reasonable cause for his failure to timely file, we need not determine whether his failure was due to willful neglect.

In addition, we hold that Dr.

Served 05/17/23 2 [*2] We hold that Dr.

In a notice of deficiency dated February 18, 2020, respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner’s 2017 federal income tax and imposed an addition to tax for failure to file pursuant to section 6651(a)(1), an addition to tax for failure to pay pursuant to section 6651(a)(2), and an addition to tax for failure to pay proper estimated tax pursuant to section 6654.

In the notice respondent determined additions to tax pursuant to section 6651(a) and penalties pursuant to section 6656 for the years in issue.

Valentine an SNOD determining a tax deficiency of $11,034 for 2016, as well as additions to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) and (a)(2).

In the notice respondent determined additions to tax pursuant to section 6651(a) and penalties pursuant to section 6656 for the years in issue.

Williams has not met his burden, we hold that he is liable for the addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1) (as reduced by the Commissioner’s concession).

Schieder has not met his burden, we hold that he is liable for the addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1).

ng to her consulting activity reported on Schedule C, Profit or Loss From Business; (3) whether petitioner is entitled to deduct real estate activity expenses reported on Schedule E, Supplemental Income and Loss; and (4) whether petitioner is liable for an addition to tax for failure to timely file pursuant to section 6651(a)(1).

Respondent has met the burden of production, and accordingly we find petitioner is liable for the additions to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) as determined by respondent.

Respondent additionally determined that petitioners are liable for an addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) for 2004 of $12,507.40.

For 2014 respondent determined a deficiency of $68,569, a $13,714 section 6662(a) accuracy-related penalty, and a Served 05/05/21 - 2 - [*2] $16,144 addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1).

We hold them liable.

For 2014 respondent determined a deficiency of $68,569, a $13,714 section 6662(a) accuracy-related penalty, and a Served 05/05/21 - 2 - [*2] $16,144 addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1).

Respondent determined for 2014 a deficiency of $17,010 and additions to tax of $430 pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) and of $478 pursuant to section 6651(a)(2).

Respondent additionally determined that petitioner is liable for an addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) of $32,741.75 for 2007.

MEMORANDUM OPINION KERRIGAN, Judge: Respondent determined a deficiency of $15,348, an addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) of $1,196, and an accuracy-related penalty pursuant to section 6662(a) of $3,070 for 2018.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION KERRIGAN, Judge: Respondent determined a deficiency of $7,475, an addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) of $2,736, and an accuracy-related penalty pursuant to section 6662(a) of $1,495 for 2016.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION KERRIGAN, Judge: Respondent determined deficiencies of $105,095 and $14,402, additions to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) of $27,593 and $9,850, and accuracy-related penalties pursuant to section 6662(a) of $21,019 and $2,880 for 2015 and 2016 (years in issue), respectively.

to additional self-employed health insurance deductions for tax years 2009 and 2010 (we hold that they are not); (4) whetherthe Larkins are entitled to a foreign tax credit ("FTC") (or to an FTC carryover) for 2009 (we hold that they are not); (5) whetherthe Larkins are liable for additions to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) for the years at issue (we hold that they are); and 2The SNOD determined the accuracy-relatedpenalties on alternative grounds; but the Commissioner has conceded all such

Bordelon was "at risk" for purposes ofsection 465 to the extent ofalmost $1 million ofloss deductions he claimed related to Allegiance Hospital ofMany, LLC ("Many LLC") (we hold that he was "at risk" for such amount in 2008); (2) whether Mr.

We hold that the Abregos are liable for the tax subject to limitations; and 2.

Bordelon was "at risk" for purposes ofsection 465 to the extent ofalmost $1 million ofloss deductions he claimed related to Allegiance Hospital ofMany, LLC ("Many LLC") (we hold that he was "at risk" for such amount in 2008); (2) whether Mr.

We hold that any deductions for "gifts" or "promotion" were properly denied.

We hold he did meet the requirements.

The issues for decision are: (1) whether petitioner is liable for the failure-to-pay addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(3)2 and (2) whether Appeals abused its discretion in sustaining the proposed collection action.

We hold that he has to the extent discussed below.

Bordelon was "at risk" for purposes ofsection 465 to the extent ofalmost $1 million ofloss deductions he claimed related to Allegiance Hospital ofMany, LLC ("Many LLC") (we hold that he was "at risk" for such amount in 2008); (2) whether Mr.

MEMORANDUM OPINION KERRIGAN, Judge: Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner's 2014 Federal income tax of$49,829, an addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) of$12,457, and a penalty pursuant to section 6662(a) of$9,966.

Accordingly, petitioner husband is liable for the additions to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1).

We hold that he did.

We hold that he may to the extent stated below.

We hold that she may properly exclude $48,151 but must include the remaining $307,337.

Santos had constructive dividend income of$156,469 in 2010 as a result ofcash withdrawals, electronic transfers to his personal account, and payments ofpersonal and meal expenses, from SESP's bank account (we hold that he did); (2) whether Mr.

By statutory notice ofdeficiency dated February 6, 2014, respondent determined the following deficiencies in petitioner's Federal income tax, additions to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1), and accuracy-relatedpenalties pursuant to section 6662(a) for the 2009 and 2010 taxable years (years at issue): Addition to tax Accuracy-related penalty Year Deficiency sec.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION ASHFORD, Judge: By statutorynotice ofdeficiency dated November 29, 2012, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS or respondent) determined deficiencies in petitioners' Federal income tax, accuracy-relatedpenalties pursuant to section 6662(a), and additions to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) for the 2006 and 2007 SERVED Aug 29 2019 - 2 - [*2] taxable years (years at issue).¹ The IRS mailed duplicate copies ofthe notice ofdeficiency (deficiency notices) to eac

The addition to tax determined for 2013 under section 6651(a) applies absent a showing by petitioners ofreasonable cause and a lack ofwillful neglect.

Accordingly, petitioner husband is liable for the additions to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1).

Accordingly, petitioner husband is liable for the additions to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1).

Accordingly, we hold that petitioner is liable for the addition to tax under section 6651(a)(2).

Accordingly, petitioner has not shown that her failure to file a timely return was due to reasonable cause, and we hold - 11 - [*11] that she is liable for the additions to tax assessed pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) and (2).4 III.

We hold that petitioner did not establish reasonable cause for the underpayments or that he acted in good faith for 2008 through 2010.

(PTI), certain business expenses for 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2009, certain itemized deductions for 2006, and a $5,355 long-term capital loss deduction for 2005; with a few limited exceptions; we hold that they are not; (3) whether Mrs.

We hold, therefore, that petitioners are liable for an addition to tax for failing timely to file their 2008 income tax return pursuant to section 6651(a)(1).

(PTI), certain business expenses for 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2009, certain itemized deductions for 2006, and a $5,355 long-term capital loss deduction for 2005; with a few limited exceptions; we hold that they are not; (3) whether Mrs.

However, we hold that Emery PC has shown that its failure to timely file a Form 941, pay the tax thereon, or make timely employment tax deposits for 1Q 1999 was due to reasonable cause.

Accordingly, we hold that interest expenses paid or incurred during the production period must be capitalized.

The addition to tax determined for 2014 under section 6651(a) applies absent a - 21 - [*21] showing by petitioner ofreasonable cause and a lack ofwillful neglect.

The addition to tax determined for 2014 under section 6651(a) applies absent a - 21 - [*21] showing by petitioner ofreasonable cause and a lack ofwillful neglect.

Accordingly, we hold that interest expenses paid or incurred during the production period must be capitalized.

(PTI), certain business expenses for 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2009, certain itemized deductions for 2006, and a $5,355 long-term capital loss deduction for 2005; with a few limited exceptions; we hold that they are not; (3) whether Mrs.

Petitioner's mistake as to, or ignorance of, the law does not amount to reasonable cause and thus will not relieve petitioner ofthe addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1).

(PTI), certain business expenses for 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2009, certain itemized deductions for 2006, and a $5,355 long-term capital loss deduction for 2005; with a few limited exceptions; we hold that they are not; (3) whether Mrs.

(PTI), certain business expenses for 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2009, certain itemized deductions for 2006, and a $5,355 long-term capital loss deduction for 2005; with a few limited exceptions; we hold that they are not; (3) whether Mrs.

We hold they are not.

On the basis ofevidence offered at trial we hold that - 5 - [*5] petitioner's liabilities are as respondent determined in the notice of deficiency.

Accordingly, we hold petitioners liable for the additions to tax under section 6651(a)(1) for tax years 2007 and 2008.

Consequently, we hold for respondent on this issue.

Pursuant to section 6651(a)(3), additions to tax, computed on the unpaid balance shown in the notice and demand, would have begun accruing 11 business days thereafter.

We hold that he is entitled to neither.

Pursuant to section 6651(a)(3), additions to tax, computed on the unpaid balance shown in the notice and demand, would have begun accruing 11 business days thereafter.

We hold they may deduct only the amounts stated herein; 5.

We hold that he was not.

We hold that petitioners are liable for additions to tax under section 6651(a)(1) for the 2007 and 2010 tax years.

We hold that they may not; (2) whether respondent properly changed petitioners' accounting method with respect to Mr.

Accordingly, we hold that petitioner is not entitled to an interest expense deduction for 2010.

We hold that they are so liable.

Respondent further determined additions to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) for SERVED Nov 28 2017 - 2 - [*2] failure to timely file returns for 2010 and 2011 of$1,789 and $1,436, respectively, and an accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a) of$510 for 2011.¹ After the parties' concessions, the issues remaining for decision are: (1) whether petitioners had smalle

We hold they may deduct only the amounts stated herein; 5.

Petitioners conceded in full the additions to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) and (2) and section 6654 for tax years 2000 and 2001.

On the basis ofthe evidence presented at trial, we hold that Mr.

We hold that they are so liable.

Petitioners conceded in full the additions to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) and (2) and section 6654 for tax years 2000 and 2001.

Accordingly, we hold that petitioners are liable for the addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1) for the taxable year 2008.5 3.

Accordingly, we hold that petitioner is liable for the additions to tax under section 6651(f) and sustain respondent's determinations as set forth in the notice ofdeficiency.

Section 6651(a) provides for an addition to tax for failure "to file any return" timely unless a taxpayer shows that the failure was due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect.

We hold that she is not.

- 32 - [*32] Additions to Tax Respondent determined that petitioner is liable for additions to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) for the taxable years 2004-05 and 2007-11.

Whether petitioner's failure to timely file a 2009 income tax return was due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect pursuant to section 6651(a)(1).¹ We hold that petitioner's failure to timely file was due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect.

We hold that petitioner has not substantiated his entitlement to meals and entertainment expense deductions as required by section 274(d).

Additions to Tax Respondent determined that petitioner is liable for additions to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) for the taxable years 2005-09.

The addition to tax for failure to file a timely return under section 6651(a) applies to self-employmenttax returns.

- 32 - [*32] Additions to Tax Respondent determined that petitioner is liable for additions to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) for the taxable years 2004-05 and 2007-11.

The only assessment made on petitioner's 2006 income tax account after to March 2, 2010, was accruals ofadditional statutory penalties for failure to pay the tax liability pursuant to section 6651(a)(2), and fees and collection costs.

We hold that petitioner is so liable; (3) whether petitioner is liable for additions to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) and (2) for failure to timely file Forms 5330, Return ofExcise Taxes Related to Employee Benefit Plans, and failure to timely pay the excise taxes for calendar years 2002 through 2006.

Without more, we hold that petitioner does not have reasonable cause for its failure to timely file tax returns, timely make Federal tax deposits, and timely pay taxes.

We hold that he is entitled to a portion ofthe disputed deductions, but we will sustain an addition to tax and penalty in amounts to be determined.

ey to pay an income tax liability might be relevant in a "collection due process" ("CDP") case brought pursuant to section 6330(d); and in a deficiency case the assertion might be relevant to an -11- [*11] argument that he should not be held liable for an addition to tax for failure to timely pay, pursuant to section 6651(a)(2) (which the IRS did not determine in this case).

Without more, we hold that petitioner does not have reasonable cause for its failure to timely file tax returns, timely make Federal tax deposits, and timely pay taxes.

2015-118, that petitioners' 2010 Federal income tax return was invalid, and considering that - 19 - [*19] neither petitioner filed any subsequent return for that year, we hold that respondent has met his burden ofproduction as to the section 6651(a)(1) addition to tax.

We hold that we will.

We hold that he did.

Without more, we hold that petitioner does not have reasonable cause for its failure to timely file tax returns, timely make Federal tax deposits, and timely pay taxes.

Accordingly, we hold that Evans is liable for the section-6651(a)(1) addition to tax for 2009.

- 33 - Accordingly, we hold that petitioner is liable for an addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1), which the parties shall compute in their Rule 155 calculations.

We hold it is $577, the amount determined in the notice ofdeficiency; ¹Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, in effect for the year at issue.

We hold that the identified individuals were TFT Galveston Portfolio's employees and TFT Galveston Portfolio is liable for the employmenttaxes determined with respect to those individuals; (2) whether, in addition to being liable for employmenttaxes for the fourth quarter oftaxable year 2004, TFT Galveston

On the basis ofthe foregoing, we hold that petitioner did not have reasonable cause for his failure to timely file.

Accordingly, we hold that petitioner is liable for the section 6655(a) addition to tax for failure to make estimated tax payments.

We hold that the expenses that Palmerpaid to move his wife's belongings are not deductible.

The issues for decision are: (1) whether petitioner was required to file Federal income tax returns for the years at issue; we hold that he was; (2) whether petitioner is liable for a tax deficiency of$2,848 for the 2010 taxable year; we hold that he is; (3) whether petitioner is liable for a tax deficiency of$2,969 for the 2011 taxable year; we hold that he is; (4) whether petitioner is liable for additions to tax under sectio

We hold that petitioners should have included the entire $6,945 on their 2010 return.

The IRS determined deficiencies in Federal income tax, additions to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1), and accuracy- related penalties pursuant to section 6662(a) for the years in issue.

We hold that the identified individuals were TFT Galveston Portfolio's employees and TFT Galveston Portfolio is liable for the employmenttaxes determined with respect to those individuals; (2) whether, in addition to being liable for employmenttaxes for the fourth quarter oftaxable year 2004, TFT Galveston

We hold that he does.

On the basis ofthe foregoing, we hold that petitioner did not have reasonable cause for his failure to timely file.

We hold that the identified individuals were TFT Galveston Portfolio's employees and TFT Galveston Portfolio is liable for the employmenttaxes determined with respect to those individuals; (2) whether, in addition to being liable for employmenttaxes for the fourth quarter oftaxable year 2004, TFT Galveston

We hold that the identified individuals were TFT Galveston Portfolio's employees and TFT Galveston Portfolio is liable for the employmenttaxes determined with respect to those individuals; (2) whether, in addition to being liable for employmenttaxes for the fourth quarter oftaxable year 2004, TFT Galveston

Accordingly, we hold that petitioner is liable for the section 6655(a) addition to tax for failure to make estimated tax payments.

We hold that the identified individuals were TFT Galveston Portfolio's employees and TFT Galveston Portfolio is liable for the employmenttaxes determined with respect to those individuals; (2) whether, in addition to being liable for employmenttaxes for the fourth quarter oftaxable year 2004, TFT Galveston

MEMORANDUMFINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION RUWE, Judge: Respondent determined a $2,743 deficiency in petitioner's 2010 Federal income tax as well as additions to tax of$617.18 and $411.45 gggpNED JUL 1 3 2015 - 2 - [*2] pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) and (2),¹ respectively.

We hold that the identified individuals were TFT Galveston Portfolio's employees and TFT Galveston Portfolio is liable for the employmenttaxes determined with respect to those individuals; (2) whether, in addition to being liable for employmenttaxes for the fourth quarter oftaxable year 2004, TFT Galveston

The issue remaining for decision is whetherpetitioner is entitled tò relief under section 6015(c).2 We hold that she is.

Because - 12 - [*12] petitioners failed to link the invoices, receipts, and bank records that they produced with the amounts ofexpenses they reported, we hold that petitioners are not entitled to any deduction for business expenses for the 2007 tax year beyond the amounts respondent conceded and allowed.4 II.

We hold that, subject to certain limitations, she is.

Introduction Respondent determined additions to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) and (2).

On the basis ofthe foregoing, we hold that petitioner did not have reasonable cause for his failure to timely file.

* * * Therefore, we hold that petitioner is not entitled to his claimed alimony deduction under section 215 for 2006.

Because - 12 - [*12] petitioners failed to link the invoices, receipts, and bank records that they produced with the amounts ofexpenses they reported, we hold that petitioners are not entitled to any deduction for business expenses for the 2007 tax year beyond the amounts respondent conceded and allowed.4 II.

We hold that the identified individuals were TFT Galveston Portfolio's employees and TFT Galveston Portfolio is liable for the employmenttaxes determined with respect to those individuals; (2) whether, in addition to being liable for employmenttaxes for the fourth quarter oftaxable year 2004, TFT Galveston

Accordingly, we hold that petitioner is entitled to a - 13 - [*13] deduction from gross income of$13,404 in addition to the agreed disbursements totaling $174,096 from the Nationwide transaction.

We hold that it does not.

We hold that he is not; and (2) whether petitioner is liable for additions to tax for failure to timely file, for failure to timelypay, and for failure to pay estimatedtax.

We hold they did; (2) whether petitioners overstated their basis in the property they sold in 2005.

Accordingly, we hold that petitioner is liable for the tax deficiencies and - 18 - [*18] section 6663 civil fraud penalties for 2002-05, and for the section 6651(a)(1) late-filing additions to tax for 2002 and 2003.

We hold that he is not; (2) whetherpetitioner failed to report $253,945 and $56,336.91 ofincome for 2008 and 2009, respectively.

Accordingly, we hold that petitionerhas not shown that respondent's determination with regard to his tax liability is in error.

Accordingly, we hold that petitioners are liable for the accuracy-relatedpenalty under section 6662(a) for the portions ofthe underpaymentsthat respondent did not concede forthe 2004, 2005, and 2006 taxable years.

We hold that they did; and (2) whetherpetitioners are liable for section 6651(a)(1) additions to tax for failing to timely file their returns.

xpenses reported on Schedules C, Profit or Loss From Business (we hold that he is not); (3) whetherpetitioner is liable for additions to tax pursuantto section 6651(a)(1) for failing to timely file Federal income tax returns (we hold that he is); (4) whetherpetitioner is liable for additions to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(2) for failing to timely pay Federal income tax (we hold that he is); (5) whether petitioner is liable for additions to tax pursuantto section 6654 for failure to pay estim

We hold that petitioner does.

We hold that petitioner is liable for the addition to tax under 6651(a)(2) for each oftax years 2002 through 2010.

We hold that Crawford has not met his burden to prove that he is entitled to a deduction for meals-and-entertainment expenses in any amount.

Accordingly, we hold that petitioner is liable for the addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1).

We hold that they are.

We hold that we do not.

We hold that the amount is $16,605.

We hold that he is; and (2) whether for the years at issue petitioner is liable for additions to tax under section 6651(a)(1) for failure to file timely, under section 6651(a)(2) for failure to pay tax timely, and under section 6654 for failure to make estimated tax paynients.

We hold that it does.

After concessions,2 the issues for decision are: (1) whether loss deductions claimed on petitioner's Schedule E, Supplemental Income and Loss, should be disallowed for 2008 and 2009 under section 469 (we hold that they should); (2) whetherpetitioner is liable under section 6651(a)(1) for an addition to tax for late filing ofa tax return for 2008 (we hold that he is); and (3) whether petitioner is liable for accuracy-relatedpenalties under section 6662(a) (we hold that he is not).

We hold that they are not.

We hold he is to a limited extent; (2) whether petitioner is liable for the additions to tax, pursuantto section 6651(a)(1),¹ for the years 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006.

We hold thatthey did to the extent stated in this opinion; (2) whetherpetitioners are entitled to deduct certain Schedule C other expenses for 2006 and 2007 in excess ofwhatrespondent allowed.

Accordingly, we hold that petitioner is liable for the addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1) for the taxable year 2010.

We hold that it did.

Phillips' 2007 Federal income tax, a $684 addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1), a $501.60 addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(2), and a $136.77 addition to OCT 30 20s - 2 - [*2] tax pursuant to section 6654.1 The issues for decision are: (1) whether Mr.

Respondent assessed the tax shown on thejoint return, as well as additions to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) and (2).

Petitioner's mistake as to or ignorance ofthe law, however, does not amount to reasonable cause and thus will not relieve her from the imposition ofthe addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1).

Accordingly, we hold that petitioner is liable for the section 6651(a)(1) addition to tax that respondent imposed.

On November 3, 2008, respondent assessed $31,576 in tax, $888 in statutory interest, and a $917 addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(2) for failure to pay timely.3 Petitioner's Refinancing Activities On July 16, 2008, petitioner refinanced the mortgage loan securing one of his rental properties and used the $31,561 ofrefinancing proceeds to pay non- Internal Revenue Service (IRS) debts.

Accordingly, we hold that petitioner is liable for the section 6651(a)(2) addition to tax for 2005.

Accordingly, we hold that petitioners are liable for the section 6651(a)(2) additions to tax.

We hold that he is liable in all respects, and we will grant summary judgment in the Commissioner's favor.

We hold that they are liable; (3) whether Dr.

We hold that they are liable.

McAlary's somewhat limited experience, and petitioner's modest operations, we hold that an hourly rate of$40 (i.e., annual compensation of$83,200) represents reasonable compensation for the various services that Mr.

07 and 2008 of$1,351 and $1,988, respectively.2 After concessions by respondent,3 the issues remaining for decision are: (1) Whether payments by Craig Cheramie to petitioner and to third parties on petitioner's behalftotaling $62,285 for 2007 are includable in petitioner's gross income as alimony.4 We hold that they are; ' Unless otherwise indicated, all subsequent section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue; all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules

Accordingly, we hold that petitioner is liable for section 6651(a)(1) additions to tax for 2004 and 2005.9 9The amounts ofthe sec.

We hold that he is not; (2) whetherpetitioner is liable for the addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1).

We hold that he is; and (2) whether petitioner is liable for additions to tax for failure to timely file under section 6651(a)(1),1 failure to timely pay under section 6651(a)(2), and failure to pay estimated taxes under section 6654 for the years 2004 through 2010.

We hold that petitioners are liable for self-employmenttax with respect to the amounts oftheir unreported income.

We hold that Jones is liable for the section 6651(a)(2) addition to tax.

Section 6651(a)(1) Addition to Tax Respondent determined that petitioner is liable for an addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) because he did not timely file his 2008 Federal income tax return.

MEMORANDUMFINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION WHERRY, Judae: This case is before the Court on a petition for redetermination ofincome tax deficiencies, additions to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) for failure to timely file a tax return, and section 6662(a) accuracy- related penalties that respondent determined for petitioner's 2006 and 2007 tax years.' The issues for determination are: (1) whether petitioner is entitled to deduct expenses on Schedule C, Profit or Loss From Business, of$1

We hold that we will sustain those determinations.

Respondent has conceded that petitioner is not liable for additions to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(2) with respect to wages paid to all four workers, including Mr.

Attached to the notice is a schedule setting forth petitioner's liabilities for (1) Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) taxes pursuant to sections 3101 and 3111, (2) additions to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1),1 and (3) penalties pursuant to section 6656, as follows: Tax Addition to tax Penalty period ended Employmenttax sec.

We hold for respondent and find that petitioner had a zero basis in his shares ofstock of National City Corp.

We hold that the IRS gave proper notice ofthe FPAA and that the deficiency notice is valid.

We hold that they each must recognize their 3Respondent has conceded on briefhis determination that Mr.

We hold that he did; (2) whether petitioner is entitled to net operating loss (NOL) deductions for the years at issue.

530, 92 Stat at 2885 (section 530); (b) whether petitioner is liable for an addition to tax for failure to timely file returns pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) for the tax periods involved; (c) whether petitioner is liable for the addition to tax for failure to timely pay pursuant to section 6651(a)(2) for the tax periods involved; and (d) whether petitioner is liable for the penalty for failure to timely deposit tax pursuant to section 6656 for the ta

Consequently, we hold that petitioner is liable for additions to tax under section 6651(f) for his 2004 and 2005 tax years.

We hold that he did; 2Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for 2006, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules ofPractice and Procedure.

We hold that he is to the extent stated in the opinion; (2) whether petitioner is entitled to a net operating loss (NOL) deduction claimed on his 2005 return.

- 3 - that petitioner had $24,604 ofunreported income, giving rise to a $2,235 deficiency.2 Respondent also determined that for 2002 pe itioner was liable for a $499 addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) for failure to file his tax return timely and a $277 addition to tax pursuant to section 6651 a)(2) for failure to pay timely.

We hold that he is not.

Additions to Tax Respondent determinedthat petitioner is liable for additions to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) and (2) for the years at issue.

Bailey makes no contention as to "reasonable cause" for the 1999 or 2000 return, and we hold that for those two years he is liable for the addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1).

SEmfED ßEE 122012 - 2 - [*2] an addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1), and penalties pursuantto section 6662(a) with respect to petitioners' Federal income tax as follows: Addition to tax Penalty Year Deficiency Sec.

We hold that the Weatherlys are not entitled to a net-operating-loss carryforward for 2004.

For the reasons stated herein, we hold that respondent did not abuse his discretion with respect to petitioner's income tax liabilities and section 6651(a)(2)2 and (d)(1) additions to tax.

Respondent determined a deficiency of$1,51 in petitioner's 2007 income tax, as well as additions to tax of $340.20 and $219.2 pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) and (2),2 respectively.

We hold that he is; 'Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code (Codej in effect for the years in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules ofPractice and Procedure.

Because petitionerhas failed to show reasonable cause for failing to pay timely the tax due as shown on the SFR, we hold that petitioner is liable for the section 6651(a)(2) addition to tax.

6654 2003 $14,595 $10,581 $3,649 , $377 2004 21,342 15,473 5,336 612 By answerto amendedpetition, respondent supported by specific averments his determination ofadditions to tax under section 6651(f) and, as an alternative to those additions to tax, claimed additions to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1).

Accordingly, we hold that petitioner is liable for the additions to tax under section 6651(a)(1) and sustain respondent's determinations as set forth in the notice ofdeficiency.

We hold that Huminski is liable for the additions to tax under section 6651(f), although we decline to impose a penalty under section 6673(a)(1).1 IWe need not address the IRS's alternative contentions, which were asserted (continued...) - 3 - [*3] FINDINGS OF FACT Some facts have been deemed stipulated u

- 2 - [*2] (1) whetherpetitioner failed to report wages of$20,721.22, (2) whether petitioner failed to report a retirement distribution of$6,600, and (3) whether petitioner is liable for an addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1)1 for failure to timely file a tax return.

Accordingly, we hold that petitioners are liable for the addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1) for 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 to the extent applicable as a result ofthe parties' computations under Rule 155.

We hold that they are not.

We hold they were not.

We hold that respondent did not err; 2.

We hold that he is not; (2) whether petitioner is entitled to deductions of$94,603 and $83,874 for disputed mortgage interest expenses reported on Schedule E, Supplemental Income and Loss, for 2007 and 2008, respectively.

10,4 issued a statutory notice ofdeficiency to petitioner in which he determined that petitioner had underreported the amount of the reversion subjectto section 4980 excisetaxby $4.,397,3405 and, accordingly, was liable for a deficiency in excise tax, of$879,468 and a failure to pay addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(2) of$219,867.6 .

Letter 531-T informed the reader that the notice ofdeficiency related to the tax year ended December 31, 2004, and that for that year respondent had determined a deficiency of$3,034,424, an addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) of$716,551.25, and a penalty pursuant to section 6662A (the accuracy related penalty on understatements with respect to reportable transactions) of $875,663.04.

We hold he did to the extent stated herein; (2) whether petitioner is entitled to trade or business expense deductions for 2004 and 2Unless otherwise indicated, section references are to the applicable version ofthe Internal Revenue Code, and Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Proce

Additions to Tax Respondent determinedthat petitioner is liable for additions to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) and (2) for the years at issue.

Bailey makes no contention as to "reasonable cause" for the 1999 or 2000 return, and we hold that for those two years he is liable for the addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1).

- 59 - We hold that respondent's Appeals officer's failure to address this discharge constitutes an abuse ofdiscretion.

We hold that he is not entitled to the disputed car and truck expense deductions for 2006 but is entitled to $3,033 ofthe disputed car and truck expense deductions for 2007; 1(...continued) Tax Court Rules ofPractice and Procedure.

On the basis ofa careful consideration ofthe foregoing factors, in the light ofthe facts and circumstances particular to this case, we hold that the workers were petitioner's employees for purposes ofFederal employment taxes during the years at issue.

Accordingly, we hold that petitioner is liable for the addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1) and sustain respondent's determination as set forth in the notice of deficiency.

Held: P is liable for a portion of the deficiency consistent with the findings herein.

We hold it is not; (2) whether Appeals abused its discretion in denying petitioner's request to reallocate prior payments and deposits from the non- trust-fund portion to the trust fund portion of petitioner's employment tax liabilities.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION WELLS, Judge: Respondent determined that petitioner was liable for a deficiency and additions to tax for failure to file timely pursuant to section 6651(a) (1) and failure to pay timely pursuant to section 6651(a) (2) for her 2001 tax year.1 lAll section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in (continued.

For these reasons, we hold that the Ohsman commission payments do not constitute excess contributions to petitioner's -7- Roth IRA.

Additions to Tax for Filing Late Returns The second issue for decision is whether Fennel is liable for additions to tax pursuant to section 6651(a) (1) of $251 for 2004, $237.75 for 2005, and $439 for 2006.

We hold it was not .

The issues for decision are: (1) Whether petitioner received gross income for taxable year 2008 and (2) whether petitioner is liable for additions to tax pursuant to section 6651(a) (1) and (2) for taxable year 2008.

Schedule C, Profit or Loss From Business; (2) whether petitioner underreported Schedule C gross receipts by $73,036; (3) whether petitioner is liable for an addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a) (1); and (4) whether petitioner is liable for the section 6662(a) accuracy-related penalty.

On November 13, 2008, a face-to-face hearing was held in accordance with petitioner's request.

On April 19, 2007, the Court entered a stipulated decision setting il forth an agreed-upon deficiency in petitioners' 2001 Federal income tax of $15,780 and an addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a) (1) of $708.75.

We hold that he did; 1Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION WELLS, Judge: Respondent determined deficiencies, additions to tax for failure to file timely pursuant to section 6651(a) (1), and accuracy-related penalties pursuant to section 6662(a) with respect to petitioners' Federal income tax as follows:1 lAll section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in (continued...) - 2 - Addition to Tax Penalty Year Deficiency Sec.

Additions to Tax for Filing Late Returns The second issue for decision is whether Fennel is liable for additions to tax pursuant to section 6651(a) (1) of $251 for 2004, $237.75 for 2005, and $439 for 2006.

Therefore, we hold that petitioner is liable for an addition to tax under section 6651(a) (2) for 2006 and 2007.

ntitled to deduct any of the charitable contributions claimed on Schedule A of his 2005 income tax return; (3) whether petitioner is entitled to deduct any of the miscellaneous expenses claimed on Schedule A of his 2005 income tax return; -and (4) whether petitioner is liable for an addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a) (1).

Respondent determined a dèficiency in income tax of $27,604, an addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a) (1) of $6,720, and a section 6662(a) penalty of $5,521 with respect to the year 2004.

By a statutory notice of deficiency dated September 8, 2008, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) determined a deficiency of $18,121 in petitioner Robert Harold High's 2006 Federal income tax, as well as an addition to tax of $1,620 pursuant to section 6651(a) (1) and an accuracy-related penalty of $3,624 pursuant to section 6662(a).

We conclude that petitioner has failed to establish reasonable cause o abate the dditi n to tax pursuant to section 6651(a) (1) for 2000 or 2002.

We hold it did not; 2.

6651(a) (2) 2003 $4,100 $923 $2,540 2004 667 --- --- The sole issue remaining for decision is whether petitioners are liable fo.r the additions to tax pursuant to section 6651(a) (1) and (2) for 2003.

We hold that he did; (2) whether petitioner is entitled to additional itemized deductions.

Petitioner has failed to provide any evidence to substantiate these deductions or bases in stock for 2002 and 2003; therefore, we hold that they are not allowable.

Accordingly, we hold that amounts Key Apparel and Star paid to petitioner as nonemployee compensation are self-employment income subject to $13,070 of tax as respondent calculated under section 1401.

Additions to Tax for Filing Late Returns The second issue for decision is whether Fennel is liable for additions to tax pursuant to section 6651(a) (1) of $251 for 2004, $237.75 for 2005, and $439 for 2006.

rsuant to sections 6651(a) (2) and (f) and 6654 of $524.03, I SERVED FEB -7 2011 - 2 - $2,620.15, and $144.97, respectively.1 The issues we must decide are: (1) Whether petitioner is liable for a deficiency in income tax; (2) whether petitioner is liable for a failure to timely pay addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a) (2); (3) whether petitioner is liable for a failure to pay estimated income tax addition to tax pursuant to section 6654; (4) whether petitioner is liable for an addition t

Adler did not timely file his tax returns for 2001 to 2004, and we hold that Mr .

with respect to petitioner's Federal income SERVED 007 3 g g - 2 - tax for 2006.' After concessions, the sole issue before this Court is whether the payments petitioner received from Cardinal Health Technologies, LLC (Cardinal Health) in 2006 constituted ordinary income or long-term capital gain.2 We hold the payments should be treated as ordinary income.

the purpose of calculating the addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(2) .

Therefore, we hold that petitioner timely -filed his 2005 Federal income tax return, and that respondent' s determination that petitioner is liable for the addition to tax for late filing under section 6651(a)(1) is erroneous .

Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner's Federal income tax for his 2003 tax year of $32,831, a failure to file addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a) (1) of $7,166, a failure to pay addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a) (2) of $6,688, and a failure to pay estimated income tax addition to tax pursuant to section 6654 of $819.

Accordingly, we hold that petitioners are liable for the addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1) .

Commissioner , Accordingly, we hold that the transaction analogous the .second situation in Rev .

.Respondent determined a .deficiency in petiti.oner's .Federal income tax of $8,153 for 2003, a failure t o file addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) of $1,780, and an accuracy-related penalty pursuant to section 6662(a) of SERVED JUL 14 2010 $1,631 .1 The issues remaining to be decided relate to petitioner's entitlement to deductions that he claimed on Schedule A, Itemized Deductions, and Schedule C, Profit or Loss.

tax on dividends received; (5) whether petitioners are liable for income tax on interest received in 1998; (6) whether petitioners must reduce their itemized deductions for all years and their child tax credit for 1998; (7) whether petitioners are liable for a failure to timely file addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a) (1).

We hold that petitioner was a real estate professional but did not properly elect his rental real estate activities as a single activity; 3 .

Accordingly, we hold that petitioner is not entitled to a dependency exemption deduction for 2002 .

For the reasons stated herein, we hold that petitioner is not entitled t deductions in excess of those respondent allowed and is liable for the additions to tax under section 6651(a)(1) .

that petitioner was-liable for deficiencies and additions to tax for failure to file a return ; pursuant to 'section ^6651(a) (1) ; failure to timely pay tax, pursuant to section 6651(a)(2) ; and failure to pay estimated income tax, pursuant to section- 6654(a) .2 Petitioner and'his .wife, on ;June 20, 2006, submitteda 2001 joint'Federal income-.tax return and on April 18, 2007, submitted.a 2004 joint Federal income tax return .

Accordingly, we hold that petitioner is liable for the addition to tax under section 6651(a) (1).

Accordingly, we hold that petitioners are liable for the addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1) .

issues we must decide are : (1) Whether petitioner is entitled to a $38,3222 bad debt deduction ; (2) whether petitioner is entitled to a $120 depreciation deduction ; (3) whether petitioner is entitled to a $6,920 amortization deduction; and (4) whether petitioner is liable for an addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) .

Lukovsky's liabilities for the addition to tax under section 6651(a)(2) for the 2002 and 2005 tax years, but we hold that for the 2004 tax year a genuine issue of material fact as to the sufficiency of the.SFR precludes summary judgment as to the section 6651(a)(2) addition to tax .

OPINION GUSTAFSON, Judge : By a statutory notice of deficiency dated October 26, 2009, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) determined a deficiency of $1,201 in petitioner Dennis Klein's 2006 Federal income tax, with additions to tax totaling $438 .37 pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) and (2) of the Internal Revenue Code ("I .R .C .", 26 U.S .C .) .

that petitioner was-liable for deficiencies and additions to tax for failure to file a return ; pursuant to 'section ^6651(a) (1) ; failure to timely pay tax, pursuant to section 6651(a)(2) ; and failure to pay estimated income tax, pursuant to section- 6654(a) .2 Petitioner and'his .wife, on ;June 20, 2006, submitteda 2001 joint'Federal income-.tax return and on April 18, 2007, submitted.a 2004 joint Federal income tax return .

23 - Accordingly, we hold that petitioners may not exclude from .income under section 121(a) the gain realized on the sale of the Summit Road property .18 III .

Petitioner filed his 2003 return (i .e ., which was due April 15, 2004) on September 25, 2006, and has failed to establish, pursuant to section 6651(a)(1), that the untimely filing was due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect .

Consequently, the estate is not liable for an addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) .

8ERVEU QCT 7 2010 l - 2 - Background In a notice of deficiency mailed to petitioner on August 11, 2008, respondent determined a $9,219 deficiency in petitioner's 2002 Federal income tax and additions to tax pursuant to section 6651(a) (1) and (2) of $754 and $838, respectively.

year for an assessed Inc me tax liability of $118,310, an addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) of $26,620, an addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(2) of $29,578, and an addition to .

- MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION THORNTON, Judge: Respondent determined a $2,491 deficiency in petitioners' 2005 Federal income tax and a $623 addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a) (1).

4~ MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION WELLS , Judge : Respondent determined a deficiency of $1,211, 748 in petitioner's 2002 Federal income tax, a failure to file addition to tax pursuant to, section 6651 ( a)(1) of $272,643, a failure to pay addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(2)` in an amount to be computed at a later date, and a failure to pay estimated tax addition to tax pursuant to section 6654(a) of ~F-p MAR 3 0 2010 $40,493 .' .The following issues remain for decision :' (1

Accordingly, we hold that, except for the wages paid to Mr .

Consequently, we hold that petitioner is liable for the addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1) , D.

We hold that he is not .

We hold they may not ; -2 .

or taxable years 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999, respectively ; (3) whether petitioner is liable for the fraudulent failure to file additions to tax pursuant to section 6651(f)' for taxable years 1996 through 2000, or in the alternative, whether petitioner is liable for failure to file additions to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) for taxable years 1996 through 2000 ; (4) whether petitioner is liable for the failure to pay additions to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(2) for taxable years 1996 thro

We hold they must recognize long-term capital gain of $44,549 ; (2) whether petitioners had unreported long-term capital gain of $328,901 for 2002 as a result of a distribution by QES .

We hold that the settlement award is not excludable from gross income and petitioner is liable for the failure to file addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1) .

We hold he is subject to tax; (2) whether Karen Lizalek is taxable on half o f petitioner's income as community property .

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION MARVEL, Judge: In a notice of deficiency dated December 16, 2005, respondent determined that petitioner was liable for a Federal income tax deficiency of $7,794 and additions to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) and (2)' for 2004 .

We hold that he does .

(4) whether petitioner is liable for the additions to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) .and (2) for 2004 and 2005 ; and (5) whether petitioner is liable for the estimated tax addition imposed pursuant to section.

determination to_proceed with collecttion of a frivolous return penalty assessed against petitioner pursuant to section 6702 ; (2) whether petitioner received and failed to report taxable income for his 1991 and 1992 taxable years ; (3) whether petitioner is liable for the addition to tax assessed pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) for the failure to timely file a Federal income tax return for his 1991 and 1992 taxable years ; (4) whether petitioner is liable for the addition to tax assessed pursuan

We hold petitioner is not liable ; (2) whether petitioner is liable for additions to tax fo r failure .to file under section 6651(a)(1), failure to pay under section 6651(a)(2), and failure to pay estimated taxes under section 6654(a) for the years at issue .' We hold petitioner is not liable .

Enayat is=liable for additions to tax under section 6651(a)(1) for, the failure to timely file his tax returns for taxable years-1998 through 2001 .' We hold that-he is .

operating losses (NOL) of $10,814 for 2004 and $5,784 for 2005 ; (4) whether petitioner is entitled to deduct home mortgage interest claimed on Schedule A, Itemized Deductions, in an amount greater than that allowed by respondent for 2004 ; (5) whether petitioner is liable for the additions to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) for 2004 and 2005 ; and (6) whether petitioner i s 2 In the .notice of deficiency respondent determined on the basis of bank deposits analysis that petitioner had unrepor

We hold that they are .

Whether Petitioner Has Shown Reasonable Cause for Failure To Pay Pursuant to section 6651(a)(2), an addition to tax is imposed for failure to pay the amount shown as tax on the taxpayer's return on or before the date prescribed for payment of the tax (determined with regard to any extension of time for payment) .

The return was accepted, and, on the basis of the return, the IRS assessed an income tax liability of $2,140 and additions to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) and (2) on May 21, 2007 .

On July 26, 2004, respondent assessed the tax, plus a delinquency 11 addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) of $922 .50, a p 1 failure to pay addition to,tax pursuant to section L IL $574, and interest of $614 .53 .

We hold, that "under no circumstances can (cid:127)* * * [the 2005 return]ibe rationally construed as a return ." United States v.

For 2004 respondent also determined additions to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) of $8,035 .65, section 6651(a)(2) of $4,999 .96, and section 6654(a) of $1,036 .65.

Following a trial on these issues, we hold that decedent's estate is liable for neither of these items .

Accordingly, we hold that petitioners' horse activity during the years in issue was an activity not engaged in for profit within the meaning of section 183 .

We hold "that -he is not .

In a notice dated June 30, 2008, respondent determined a deficiency of $4,539 in petitioner's Federal income tax for 2004 and additions to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1 ) SERVED JUL 14 2009 1i 2 - of $740 .02 and section 6651(a) (2) of $592 .02 .1 In an amendment to answer filed May 18, 2009, respondent alleged and claimed for 2004 an increased deficiency of $7,136 and an increased addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1) of $1,324 .

Therefore, the Court sustains respondent’s determination of the addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) for taxable years 1990, 1991, and 1992.

On December 11, 2006, respondent sent petitioner a notice of deficiency relating to 2004 and determined a deficiency of $20,647 and additions to tax of $1,404, $562, and $133 pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) and (2) and section 6654(a), respectively .

We hold that it has not ; and (2) whether petitioner is liable for an addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1) for failure to timely file his 2001 return .' We hold that he is .

Thus, we hold that only the $47,692 deficiency is at issue, and the burden is~ on Baker to prove that it is erroneous .

By a statutory notice of deficiency dated January 3, 2006, respondent determined an income tax deficiency of $57,558 and additions to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) of $12,951, pursuant to section 6651(a)(2) of $8,921, and pursuant to section 6654 of $1,923, with respect to petitioner's 2002 taxable year .

As Sam's Town was the only source of petitioner's gambling income and losses in 2004, we hold that petitioner proved he sustained gambling losses of $15,613 for .

Respondent determined a $12,118 deficiency in petitioners' 2001 Federal income tax, a $3,029 .50 addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) for failing to file a timely 2001 tax return, and a $2,423 .60 accuracy-related penalty pursuant to section 6662 .

After application of section 6015(c), petitioner is liable for $2,404 in income tax for 1996 .2 Further, after applying section 6015(c), respondent has conceded that there is no addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(2) .

Accordingly, we hold that petitioner did not have re sonable cause for failing to pay her 2002 tax liability when due .

As Sam's Town was the only source of petitioner's gambling income and losses in 2004, we hold that petitioner proved he sustained gambling losses of $15,613 for .

Respondent also determined SERVED DEC 2 2 2008 - 2 - additions to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) and (2) for 2004 .1 The issues for decision are : (1) Whether petitioner is liable for the deficiencies ; (2) whether petitioner is liable for an addition to tax for failing to file a Federal income tax return for 2004 ; (3) whether petitioner is liable for an addition to tax for failing to pay

3 Respondent concedes that petitioner is not liable for additions to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(2) for the years in issue .

We hold that petitioner failed - 7 - to carry his burden of proving that respondent's determination was incorrect .

We hold that she is not ; (2) whether petitioner is entitled to deduct rental expenses claimed in excess of rental income she received from renting a portion of her personal residence in 2005 .

We hold that the evidence described above is sufficient to satisfy respondent's burden of proof with respect to the additions to tax under sec .

We hold that he is not .

In view of the foregoing, we hold that respondent's determination of AMT is correct .

We hold that when Mr .

Respondent determined a $6,463 deficiency in petitioner's 2002 Federal income tax and a $123 .10 addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) .

Petitioner filed her 2002 return (i .e ., which was due April 15, 2003) on March 5, 2004, and has failed to establish, pursuant to section 6651(a)(1), that such untimely filing was due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect .

To reflect the foregoing and respondent's concession , Decision will be entered for respondent, except as to the addition to tax Pursuant to section 6651(a)(2) .

The issues remaining for decision are : (1) Whether petitioner is entitled to the benefit of joint filing status and deductions for his wife and children for 2002 and 2003 ; (2) whether petitioner is liable for additions to tax for failure to file returns pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) for 2002 and 2003 ; and (3) whether petitioner is liable for additions to tax for failure to pay estimated tax pursuant to section 6654 for 2002 and 2003 .

The issues remaining for decision are : (1) Whether petitioner is entitled to the benefit of joint filing status and deductions for his wife and children for 2002 and 2003 ; (2) whether petitioner is liable for additions to tax for failure to file returns pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) for 2002 and 2003 ; and (3) whether petitioner is liable for additions to tax for failure to pay estimated tax pursuant to section 6654 for 2002 and 2003 .

Respondent assessed the tax reported on the return, along with additions to tax, pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) and (2), of $2,618 .10 for late filing and $581 .80 for late payment .

Section 6651(a) provides for an addition to tax of 5 percent per month, up to 25 percent, for failure to file that is not due to reasonable cause .

Additionally, respondent determined an addition to tax of $654 pursuant to section 6651(a) for the taxable year 2000.

We hold that petitioner's horse showing and breeding activities were not engaged in for profit within the meaning of section 183 and that she is liable for the addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1) .

The assessment included an accuracy- related penalty pursuant to section 6662, a failure to pay addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(2), and interest for taxable year 1997.

The notice determined a $12,222 deficiency and a $1,872 .50 addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) .

- 2 - Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner’s Federal income tax of $25,964, an addition to tax of $5,562.22 pursuant to section 6651(a)(1), an addition to tax of $3,090.12 pursuant to section 6651(a)(2), and an addition to tax of $1,322.13 pursuant to section 6654(a) for the taxable year 2000.

Accordingly, we hold that petitioner is a qualified personal service corporation under section 448(d)(2) and is subject to the flat 35-percent tax rate for the years in issue .

- 2 - Respondent determined a deficiency of $5,259 in petitioner’s 2000 Federal income tax, and additions to tax of $232.87 and $119.02 pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) and (2), respectively.

whether petitioner is liable for an addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) for failure to timely file his 2003 tax return.

Petitioner failed to establish, pursuant to section 6651(a)(1), that such failure was due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect .

Respondent also determined that petitioner is liable for a tax deficiency Of $2, 876 and an addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a) (1) of .$539.25 for taxable year 2001.

Respondent also determined that petitioner is liable for a tax deficiency of $2,876 and an addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) of $539.25 for taxable year 2001.

Glaze a notice of deficiency for taxable year 1995, in which respondent determined that they had unreported income of $36,424 and were liable for an income tax deficiency of $8,237, an addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) of $1,493, and an accuracy-related penalty pursuant to section 6662 of $1,647.

We hold that he did to the extent provided herein.

Accordingly, we hold that petitioners are liable for the addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1) for the year 2000.

Respondent determined that petitioner is liable for additions to tax for: (1) Failure to timely file a return for taxable year 2001 pursuant to section 6651(a)(1); and (2) failure to make timely payment of tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(2).

We hold that he did not.

Accordingly, we hold that petitioner is not liable for a section 6662(a) accuracy-related penalty for 1998.

Respondent contends that petitioner is liable for an addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1).

- 2 - Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner’s Federal income tax of $46,076, an addition to tax of $4,874.85 pursuant to section 6651(a)(1), an addition to tax of $3,791.55 pursuant to section 6651(a)(2), and an addition to tax of $910.21 pursuant to section 6654(a) for the taxable year 1999.

Addition to Tax Pursuant to section 6651(a)(1), respondent determined that petitioner is liable for an addition to tax.

Accordingly, we hold that petitioner is not entitled to deduct expenses in connection with his insurance activity.

Accordingly, we hold for petitioners on the section 6662(a) penalty.

Petitioner conceded that he (1) received long-term capital gain income in the amount of $1,154 in 1999, (2) received $11,154 from Social Security, (3) received interest income in the amount of $155 in 1999, (4) is liable for an addition to tax for 1999 pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) and (5) is liable for a penalty under section 6662(a).

Respondent contends that petitioner is liable for additions to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) for 1998, 1999, and 2000.

Spanier is liable for an addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1).

In the notice of deficiency for the taxable year 1998, respondent determined that petitioners: (1) Are not entitled to deduct the $14,971.38 claimed as “job seeking expenses”; and (2) are liable for an addition to tax of $488.25 pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) for failure to file their 1998 tax return by the prescribed due date.

We hold petitioner may not exclude from income the amounts paid to Ms.

Respondent contends that petitioners are liable for an addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1).

Spanier is liable for an addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1).

The only determination made by respondent in the notice of deficiency was that petitioner was liable for an addition to tax of $6,570.68 for the 1993 taxable year, pursuant to section 6651(a)(1).

,341.75 4,288.40 After concessions,1 the issues for decision are: (1) Whether petitioner is entitled to “married filing joint return” filing status for the 1997 taxable year; (2) whether petitioner is liable for additions to tax for failure to file timely returns for the 1997 and 1998 taxable years pursuant to section 6651(a)(1); and (3) whether petitioner is liable for accuracy- 1 With respect to the 1997 taxable year, respondent concedes the issue whether petitioner had unreported capital gain

- 2 - Respondent determined a deficiency of $2,019 and an addition to tax of $504.75 pursuant to section 6651(a) in petitioner’s Federal income tax for the taxable year 1995.

We hold that they are.

The issues for decision are: (1) Whether petitioner is entitled to all or any part of a claimed casualty loss deduction, and (2) whether the petitioner is liable for the additions to tax for late filing pursuant to section 6651(a)(1), as determined by respondent.

We hold that petitioner did not file valid returns.

- 2 - Respondent determined a deficiency of $11,032, an addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) of $2,757, and a penalty pursuant to section 6662(a) of $2,206 with respect to petitioners’ 1994 Federal income tax.

Respondent also determined additions to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) and penalties pursuant to section 6662.

We hold that they are not.

-- 22 -- Respondent determined a deficiency of $3,044 and an addition to tax of $608.80 pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) in petitioner’s Federal income tax for the taxable year 1997.

We now decide whether petitioner is liable for the additions to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1).

We hold that respondent’s disallowance of petitioners’ losses is sustained.

-- 22 -- Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner’s Federal income tax for the taxable year 1994 in the amount of $2,011 and an addition to tax of $503 pursuant to section 6651(a)(1).

Respondent determined that petitioner is liable for an addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) and an addition to tax pursuant to section 6654(a).

Petitioner has not presented any evidence establishing a reasonable cause for his failure to file a return, thus we hold petitioner is liable for the section 6651(a)(1) addition to tax.

- 2 - OPINION1 GERBER, Judge: Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner’s 1995 Federal income tax of $26,526, a penalty pursuant to section 6662(a)2 of $5,305, and a late-filing addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) of $5,305.

Because the safe harbor of section 530 does not provide relief to petitioner, and in accord with our finding above that the beauticians were petitioner’s employees rather than independent contractors, we hold that petitioner is liable for the employment taxes due as stated in the notice of determination.

We hold that he did not.

Respondent contends that petitioner is liable for an addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1).

Respondent contends that petitioner is liable for an addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1).

We hold that he is not.

We hold that petitioner is liable for the additions to tax under section 6651(a)(1).

ons in 1995 and 1996 to a simplified employer pension-individual retirement account (SEP); (3) whether petitioner is entitled to deductions for amounts paid for self-employed health insurance; (4) whether petitioner is liable for additions to tax for failure to file timely returns for 1995 and 1996 pursuant to section 6651(a)(1); and (5) whether petitioner is liable for negligence penalties for 1995 and 1996 pursuant to section 6662(a).1 Some of the facts have been stipulated, and they are so fo

Accordingly, we hold petitioner is liable for the addition to tax under section 6651(a).

We hold that petitioner is not entitled to a deduction in any amount for employee business expenses.

Respondent contends that petitioner is liable for additions to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1).

Accordingly, we hold petitioner is liable for the additions to tax under section 6651(a).

OPINION VASQUEZ, Judge: Respondent determined a deficiency of $42,934, an addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) of $9,492, and an accuracy-related penalty pursuant to section 6662(a) of $8,587 in petitioner’s 1991 Federal income tax.1 Pursuant to Rule 122, the parties submitted this case fully stipulated.

- 3 - Background On October 6, 1995, respondent issued a notice of deficiency to petitioner determining a deficiency of $5,944 in his Federal income tax for 1988, as well as an addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) in the amount of $736 and an addition to tax pursuant to section 6654(a) in the amount of $166.

We hold they may not.

We hold that she is not.

OPINION WELLS, Judge: Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioners' Federal income tax for the taxable year 1992 in the - 3 - amount of $26,720 and an addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1)1 in the amount of $4,008.

GERBER, Judge: Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner's 1995 Federal income tax of $3,893, a penalty pursuant to section 6662(a)1 of $778.60, and a late-filing addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) of $194.65.

Held: Because the Form 1040 submitted on behalf of P was not signed as required by sec.

We hold that it does.

We hold that she is not.

Therefore, we hold that petitioner is not entitled to use the claimed depreciation and amortization deductions in the computation of her 1987 and 1988 NOL.

Additions to Tax In the Notice, respondent determined that petitioner was liable for an addition to tax of $8,121 under section 6651(a)(1) for failure to timely file, an addition to tax of $9,023 under section 6651(a)(2) for failure to timely pay, and an addition to tax of $543 under section 6654(a) for failure to make estimated tax payments. The Commissioner bears the burden of producing sufficient evidence to show that it is appropriate to impose the additions to tax. See § 7491(c); Wheeler v.

Additions to Tax In the Notice, respondent determined that petitioner was liable for an addition to tax of $37,204 under section 6651(a)(1) for failure to timely file, an addition to tax of $28,937 under section 6651(a)(2) for failure to timely pay, and an addition to tax of $3,959 under section 6654(a) for failure to make estimated tax payments. Respondent has since conceded the addition to tax under section 6654(a). Respondent bears the burden of producing sufficient evidence to show that it i

Further, failure to timely file is not excused by a taxpayer’s reliance on an agent, and such reliance is not reasonable cause for a late filing under section 6651(a)(1). McNair Eye Ctr., Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2010-81, 2010 WL 1558164, at *2 (citing Boyle, 469 U.S. at 252). Notwithstanding petitioner’s many difficulties due to his failing health and advanced age, petitioner was diligent in exercising ordinary business care and prudence. He had systems in place to ensure tax compliance

Additions to Tax Respondent determined that petitioner is liable for additions to tax for failure to timely file a return under section 6651(a)(1) and failure to pay estimated income tax under section 6654(a) for the 2016 and 2017 tax years. The Commissioner bears the burden of production with respect to a taxpayer’s liability for additions to tax under sections 6651(a)(1) and 6654(a). § 7491(c). To satisfy this burden the Commissioner must present sufficient evidence to show that it is appropri

Whether a taxpayer has "reasonable cause" within the meaning ofsection 6651(a)(1) depends on whether the taxpayer "exercised 'ordinary business care and prudence' but nevertheless was 'unable to file the return within the prescribed time.'" United States v. Boyle, 469 U.S. at 246 (quoting section 301.6651-1(c)(1), Proced. & Admin. Regs.). While we are sympathetic to the challenges Ms. Wienke faced over this period, nothing in the ¹³ The burden ofproduction as to Evergrow's additions to tax remai

Whether a taxpayer has "reasonable cause" within the meaning ofsection 6651(a)(1) depends on whether the taxpayer "exercised 'ordinary business care and prudence' but nevertheless was 'unable to file the return within the prescribed time.'" United States v. Boyle, 469 U.S. at 246 (quoting section 301.6651-1(c)(1), Proced. & Admin. Regs.). While we are sympathetic to the challenges Ms. Wienke faced over this period, nothing in the ¹³ The burden ofproduction as to Evergrow's additions to tax remai

Additions to Tax Section 6651(a)(1) provides for an addition to tax when a taxpayer fails to file a timely return. The addition to tax is a prescribed percentage ofthe amount oftax required to be shown on the return. Section 6651(a)(2) imposes an addition to tax for failure to pay timely the tax shown on a return. That addition to tax is a prescribed percentage ofthe tax actually shown on the return. In each case, the prescribed percentage increases up to a stated maximum based on the extent oft

at the penalty is the smaller of$135 or 100% ofthe tax paid late. However, this limit that ATL mistakenly posits is in fact the minimum amount ofthe addition to tax imposed under section 6651 (as in effect for 2012) for certain failures to file, see sec. 6651(a) (flush language), not a limit on the penalty under section 6699. The limitation to the section 6699 penalty is different: - 16 - The penalty for a late Form 1120S will not exceed 12 times the monthly penalty amount (i.e., $195 multiplied

Section 6651(a)(1) Addition to Tax Section 6651(a)(1) imposes an addition to tax for failure to file a return on the date prescribed (determined with regard to any extension oftime for filing) unless the taxpayer can establish that the failure is due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect.8 The section 6651(a)(1) addition to tax is equal to 5% of the amount oftax on the return ifthe failure is not for more than one month, with an additional 5% to be added for each month or partial mo

Section 6651(a)(1) Addition to Tax Respondent determined that petitioner was liable for an addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1). Section 6651(a)(1) imposes an addition to tax when a taxpayer fails to timely file a return unless the taxpayer establishes that the failure was due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect. The Commissioner has the burden ofproduction with respect to the section 6651(a)(1) addition to tax. See sec. 7491(c). To meet this burden, the Commissioner must produce evi

Hendrickson is separately liable for additions to tax under section 6651(a)(2) for 2005 and 2006 and section 6651(f) for 2004, 2005, and 2006. They argue that section 6751(b) requires supervisory approval of additions to tax under section 6651(a) and (f) because these additions to tax are not automatically calculated through electronic means. Their position is that section 6751(b)(2) is ambiguous and that the rule oflenity requires us to resolve any ambiguity in their favor. We disagree. Section

Although respondent bears the burden ofproduction with respect to the addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1), respondent "need not introduce evidence regarding reasonable cause, substantial authority, or similar provisions. * * * the taxpayer bears the burden ofproofwith regard to those issues." Higbee v. Commissioner, supra at 446. On June 30, 2015, petitioners mailed to respondent their 2008 return and their 2009 return. Respondent received those returns on July 2, 2015. Section 6651(a)(1) i

Beyer's taxable year 2005 that are (continued...) - 149 - [*149] Respondent bears the burden ofproduction with respect to the additions to tax under section 6651(a)(1) and (2) and the accuracy-relatedpenalty under section 6662(a) that respondent determined in the notice. See sec. 7491(c); Higbee v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 438, 446-447 (2001). To satisfy respondent's burden ofproduction, respondent must come forward with "sufficient evidence indicating that it is appropriate to impose" those addi

Without more, however, this assertion is insufficientto establish that she had reasonable cause for her failure to timely file or that she qualifies for any exceptionto the section 6651(a)(1) addition to tax. Accordingly, we find that petitioner is liable for the addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1). B. Section 6651(a)(2) Addition to Tax Section 6651(a)(2) imposes an addition to tax for failure to pay the amount oftax shown on a return. When a taxpayer does nottimely file a return for the ta

Respondent also determined that for each yearpetitioner was liable for additions to tax pursuantto section 6651(a)(1) and (2). On July 27, 2011, petitioner, while residing in Georgia, filed his petition with the Court. OPINION Respondent establishedthat petitionerreceived $16,132 and $1,821 of interest from the Coastal Bank during 2006 and 2007, respectively. Petitioner failed to present any evidence to rebut respondent's deficiency determinations and concedes that he received interest income du

Respondent determined that petitioner is liable, pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) and (2), for additions to tax for failure to timely file a return and failure to timely pay tax. Pursuantto section 7491(c), respondent bears the burden ofproduction relating to these additions to tax. See Higbee v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 438, 446 (2001). 4Sec. 7491(a) provides that the burden ofproofshall shift to the Commissioner ifthe taxpayer introduces credible evidence relating to the issue. This section is ina

Under section 6651(g)(2), a retu prepare 1 by the Secretary pursuant to section 6020(b) is treated as a return file by the t xpayer for the purpose ofdetermining the amount ofan addition to tax under section 6651(a)(2). The 2006 substitute for return included with the exhibits deemed a itted meets the requirements ofsection 6020(b). In computing the section 6651(a (2) addition to tax as determined in the notice ofdeficiency, respondent reduced t e amount oftax shown on the substitute for return

I -16- The IRS determined that Oglesby was liable for additions to tax of $100 under section 6651(a) (1) and a penalty of $1,122.40 under section 6662. A. Addition to Tax Under Section 6651(a) (1) When a taxpayer is late in filing a return, section 6651(a) (1) imposes an addition to tax unless the taxpayer had a reasonable cause for failing to file on time. For each month the taxpayer is late, the addition is 5 percent of the tax due,7 up to 25 percent. Sec. 6651(a) (1). If a return is more tha

In computing the section 6651(a) (2) additions to tax as determined -in the notice of deficiency, respondent reduced the amounts of tax shown on the SFRs by petitioner's wage withholdings for 2001 and 2003. It is undisputed that petitioner failed to pay any other part of the tax shown on the SFRs. Respondent concedes that petitioner's deficiency for each year at issue is smaller than he "originally determined on the basis of the SFRs. If, as seems likely, the computations show that after taking

) The section 6651(a)(3) addition itself is not subject to the deficiency procedures applicable to tax . By its nature, the addition is not fixed but increases in amount (up to a total of 25 percent of the tax) . as time passes and the tax remains unpaid . The IRS may assess the accrued addition from time to time, but it is not required to do so, and it may collect the addition without assessment . See Reese v . Commissioner , T .C. Memo . 2006-21, affd . 201 Fed . Appx . 961 (4th Cir . 2006) .

Respondent - 3 - also determined that petitioner was li ble for a section 6651(a)(1) addition to tax for failure to timely file tax returns relating to 2002 and 2003, a section 6 51(a)(2) addition to tax for failure to pay relating to 2002 an 2003, a section 6654(a) addition to tax for failure to pay est mated tax relating to 2002, a section 6662(a) accuracy-relat d penalty for underpayment of tax relating to 2003, and a section 72(t) additional tax for retirement plan distributions relating to

Even where the taxpayer fails to follow the prescribed forms, a document will be treated as a valid return for purposes of section 6651(a) if it satisfies the following: (i) It contains sufficient data to calculate tax liability; (ii) it purports to be a return; (iii) it represents an honest and reasonable attempt to satisfy the requirements of the tax law; and (iv) it is executed under penalties of perjury.

Even where the taxpayer fails to follow the prescribed forms, a document will be treated as a valid return for purposes of section 6651(a) if it satisfies the following: (i) It contains sufficient data to calculate tax liability; (ii) it purports to be a return; (iii) it represents an honest and reasonable attempt to satisfy the requirements of the tax law; and (iv) it is executed under penalties of perjury.

Even where the taxpayer fails to follow the prescribed forms, a document will be treated as a valid return for purposes of section 6651(a) if it satisfies the following: (i) It contains sufficient data to calculate tax liability; (ii) it purports to be a return; (iii) it represents an honest and reasonable attempt to satisfy the requirements of the tax law; and (iv) it is executed under penalties of perjury.

On the basis of our holding and a concession by respondent that section 6651(a) is inapplicable if petitioner is entitled to deduct its expenses, we also hold without further discussion that petitioner is not liable for any addition to tax determined by respondent under section 6651(a).

- 2 - Respondent determined a deficiency of $1,354 in petitioner’s 1999 Federal income tax, and an addition to tax of $135 under section 6651(a)(1). The issues for decision are: (1) Whether petitioner, a nonresident alien, is entitled to claimed Schedule A deductions, and (2) whether petitioner is liable for an addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1). Some of the facts in this case have been stipulated and are so found. Petitioner resided in North Bergen, New Jersey, at the time he filed his pe

- 2 - By notice of deficiency, respondent determined deficiencies in petitioners’ Federal income tax, additions to tax under section 6651(a), and accuracy-related penalties under section 6662 as follows: Additions to Tax/Penalties Sec.

The flush language of section 6651(a) provides that in the case of a failure to file within 60 days of the date prescribed for the filing of such return, unless it is shown that such failure is due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect, the addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1) shall not be less than the lesser of $100 or 100 percent of the amount required to be shown as tax on such return. See Patronik-Holder v. Commissioner, 100 T.C. 374, 379- 381 (1993). Petitioners’ 1997 Fede

Addition to Tax for Failure To File Timely Under Section 6651 and Accuracy-Related Penalties Under Section 6662 Respondent determined that petitioners are liable for the section 6651(a) addition to tax for failing to file a timely return for 1990.

ore us, we find respondent has met the burden of production by coming forward with sufficient evidence indicating that it is appropriate to impose on petitioners those additions to tax. Petitioners bear the burden of proving “reasonable cause” under section 6651(a). See Higbee v. Commissioner, supra; Joye v. Commissioner, supra. 2. Jurisdiction in the Section 6330 Cases5 The Court has jurisdiction to review lien and levy determinations under section 6330 if we generally have jurisdiction over th

ore us, we find respondent has met the burden of production by coming forward with sufficient evidence indicating that it is appropriate to impose on petitioners those additions to tax. Petitioners bear the burden of proving “reasonable cause” under section 6651(a). See Higbee v. Commissioner, supra; Joye v. Commissioner, supra. 2. Jurisdiction in the Section 6330 Cases5 The Court has jurisdiction to review lien and levy determinations under section 6330 if we generally have jurisdiction over th

dicates that petitioner could not have believed in good faith that it would be timely filed by April 17, 1989. Moreover, even if we were able to find such good faith reliance by petitioner, it would not constitute “reasonable cause” for purposes of section 6651(a). “The failure to make a timely filing of a tax return is not excused by the taxpayer’s reliance on an agent, and such reliance is not ‘reasonable cause’ for a late filing under § 6651(a)(1).” United States v. Boyle, 469 U.S. 241, 252 (

- 16 - Having described the framework of section 7491(c), we evaluate whether respondent has met his burden of production with regard to the section 6651(a)(1) addition to tax and the section 6662 accuracy-related penalty. We also discuss whether petitioners have presented any evidence which would cause us not to sustain respondent’s determinations with regard to the addition to tax and the accuracy-related penalty. Section 6651(a)(1) imposes an addition to tax for a taxpayer’s failure to file a

holds that he is liable for the addition to tax determined by respondent under section 6651(a)(1). Respondent determined in the notice of deficiency that under section 6651(a)(2) petitioner failed to pay timely the amount shown as tax on a Federal income tax return for 1996. We have found that petitioner did not file a Federal income tax return for 1996 until after the notice of deficiency was issued, and there is no evidence that respondent prepared for petitioner a return under the authority o

After concessions by respondent,1 we must decide the following issues:2 (1) Whether petitioners are entitled to deductions for interest that they paid with respect to delinquent Federal income taxes for 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, and 1993; (2) whether petitioners are liable for the addition to tax under section 6651(a) for 1995; and (3) whether petitioners are liable for an accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a) for 1996.

ection 7491(c), as noted above, the Commissioner bears the burden of production with regard to whether the section 6651(a)(1) addition to tax is appropriate, but he does not bear the burden of proof with regard to the “reasonable cause” exception of section 6651(a). Respondent determined that petitioners are liable for a section 6651(a)(1) addition to tax with regard to their 1996 tax return. The parties have stipulated that petitioners filed their 1996 return on April 18, 1998, approximately 1

000. William J. Ashley, pro se. Jean Song, for respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION VASQUEZ, Judge: Respondent determined the following deficiencies in and additions to petitioner’s 1992 and 1994 Federal income taxes: Additions to Tax Tax Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a) Sec. 6654(a) 1992 $1,676 $419 — 1994 70,074 17,519 $3,611 - 2 - All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. After

Z, Judge: In these consolidated cases, respondent determined the following deficiencies in, additions to, and an accuracy-related penalty on petitioners’ 1994 Federal income tax: - 2 - Accuracy-Related Additions to Tax Penalty Petitioner Deficiency Sec. 6651(a) Sec. 6654 Sec. 6652 R. Paul Kropp $36,135 $8,797.50 $1,848.30 –- Lorna B. Kropp 9,596 –- –- $1,919 Unless otherwise noted, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue, and all Rule references ar

. William S. Cook, pro se. Robert W. Dillard, for respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION CHIECHI, Judge: Respondent determined the following defi- ciencies in, and additions to, petitioner's Federal income tax (tax): - 2 - Additions to Tax Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a)1 Sec. 6654(a) 1994 $20,835 $3,084 $303 1995 7,778 195 424 The only issues remaining for decision are whether peti- tioner is liable for 1994 for the additions to tax under sections 6651(a) and 6654(a). We hold that he is. Some of the facts

There is an exception to section 6665(a) in section 6665(b), but the exception does not apply in the two situations present in the instant case; namely, the portion of the addition to tax under section 6651(a) that is attributable to the deficiency, and the entire addition to tax under section 6654 where no return is filed.

Section 6651(a) imposes an addition to tax for a taxpayer's failure to file a required return on or before the specified filing date, including extensions. The addition to tax is inapplicable, however, if the taxpayer shows that the failure to file the return was due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect. See sec. 6651(a)(1). To prove

Petitioner contends that she is not liable for the additions to tax under section 6651(a) for the years 1989 through 1992.4 3Service records also show that petitioner did not file a tax return for 1993.

Section 6651(a) imposes an addition to tax for a taxpayer's failure to file a required return on or before the specified filing date, including extensions. The addition to tax is inapplicable, however, if the taxpayer shows that the failure to file the return was due to reasonable cause and not to willful neglect. See sec. 6651(a)(1). It is undispu

6651(a), I.R.C. Lance M. Weagant and Randall D. Fowler, for petitioner. Dwight M. Montgomery, for respondent. WRIGHT, Judge: Respondent determined a deficiency of $154,545 in petitioner's Federal estate tax and an addition to tax under section 6651(a)1 in the amount of $38,636. After concessions by the parties, the issues remaining are: (1) Whether decedent's property interest in the Young Property was an interest in joint tenancy or in community property. We hold that decedent held the property

- 5 - As to the addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a) for failure to file a timely 1994 return, petitioner bears the burden of proving that it does not apply.

Section 6651(a) imposes an addition to tax for a taxpayer's failure to file a required return on or before the specified filing date, including extensions. The addition to tax is inapplicable, however, if the taxpayer shows that the failure to file the return was due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect. Sec. 6651(a)(1). - 13 - Petitioner d

Respondent determined that the form was not a valid return and that petitioner was liable for a section 6651(a) addition to tax for 1989.

--- MAJORITY --- Wright, Judge: Respondent determined a deficiency of $154,545 in petitioner’s Federal estate tax and an addition to tax under section 6651(a) in the amount of $38,636.

in respondent's determina- 20 Although not altogether clear, there may be a disagreement between the parties about the amounts of the prepayment credits for the years at issue to which petitioner is entitled in comput- ing the additions to tax under sec. 6651(a), as well as sec. 6654(a). We direct the parties to resolve any such disagreement in their computations under Rule 155. - 22 - tions, as reduced on brief by respondent, imposing the additions to tax under section 6654(a) for each of the y

6651(a); United States v. Boyle, 469 U.S. 241, 245 (1985). A failure to file timely a Federal income tax return is due to reasonable cause if the taxpayer exercised ordinary business care - 16 - and prudence and, nevertheless, was unable to file the return within the prescribed time. Sec. 301.6651-1(c)(1), Proced. & Admin. Regs. Willful negle

Section 6651(a) Addition to Tax Respondent also determined that petitioner is liable for an addition to tax for 1991 under section 6651(a)(1) for its failure to file a timely return. Section 6651(a)(1) imposes an addition to tax of 5 percent of the tax due for each month a return is delinquent, not to exceed 25 percent. The addition does not apply

decision are: (1) Is the loss at issue for each of the years 1989 and 1990 a passive activity loss within the meaning of section 469? We hold that it is. (2) Are petitioners liable for each of the years 1989 and 1990 for the addition to tax under section 6651(a)? We hold that they are. (3) Are petitioners liable for each of the years 1989 and 1990 for the accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a)? We hold that they are. FINDINGS OF FACT Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so fou

Based on the record, we are satisfied that petitioner has established that she incurred expenses deductible pursuant to section 183(b) in amounts at least equal to the amounts of gross income realized from her photography activity.4 Section 6651(a) Addition to Tax Respondent determined that petitioner was liable for the addition to tax provided by section 6651(a) for 1990 and 1991.

r respondent. MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION VASQUEZ, Judge: By separate notices of deficiency, respondent determined deficiencies and additions to tax in petitioner's Federal income taxes as follows: - 2 - Additions to Tax Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a) Sec. 6654 1989 $7,011 $1,711 $463 1990 6,653 1,663 441 Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice an

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION WRIGHT, Judge: Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioners’ Federal income tax for taxable year 1990 in the amount of $10,229, an addition to tax under section 6651(a) in the amount of $2,087, and an accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a) in the amount of $2,045.03.1 1Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year at issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practi

6651(a); United States v. Boyle, 469 U.S. 241, 245 (1985); In re Stanford, 979 F.2d 1511, 1512 (11th Cir. 1992). A failure to file timely a Federal income tax return is due to reasonable cause if the taxpayer exercised ordinary business care and prudence, and nevertheless, was unable to file the return within the prescribed time. In re Stanfor

6651(f), however, provides that, where a failure to file a return is fraudulent, the addition to tax imposed by section 6651(a) is increased to 15 percent of the amount required to be shown as tax for each month the failure continues, up to a maximum of 75 percent of the amount.

6651(a); Rule 142(a); United States v. Boyle, 469 U.S. 241, 245 (1985); Buelow v. Commissioner, 970 F.2d 412, 415 (7th Cir. 1992), affg. T.C. Memo. 1990-219; Church of Scientology v. Commissioner, 823 F.2d 1310, 1321 (9th Cir. 1987), affg. 83 T.C. 381 (1984); Catalano v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 8 (1983), affd. without published opinion sub nom.

f establishing that the additions to tax should not apply. Rule 142(a). Petitioner essentially contends that since respondent erroneously applied section 874(a) to disallow the deductions, there is neither an “amount [of tax] required to be shown”, sec. 6651(a), nor an “underpayment of estimated tax”, sec. 6654(a). We have rejected that argument. Applying section 874(a), statutory predicates for the additions to tax are present. Furthermore, petitioner has not attempted to establish that he sati

Accordingly, we sustain respondent's determinations with respect to the liability of Radcliffe and BOT for (1) the additions to tax provided under section 6651(a) for failure to file timely withholding tax re- turns with respect to the amounts required to be shown as tax in such returns that result from this Opinion, (2) the additions to tax provided under section 6653(a) for negligence and/or dis- regard of rules or regulations with respect to the underpayments, as defined in section 6653(c)

Whether petitioner is liable for: (a) Additions to tax for negligence under section 6653(a) for 1987-88; (b) the accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a) for 1989-90 and 1992-97; and (c) additions to tax for failure to timely file returns under section 6651(a) for 1987-90 and 1992.

Whether Petitioners Are Liable for the Addition to Tax Under Section 6651(a) for Failure To Timely File a Return Respondent determined and contends that petitioners are liable for the addition to tax under section 6651(a) for failure to timely file their income tax return for 1992.

Whether Petitioner Is Liable for the Addition To Tax for Failing To Timely File His Return Under Section 6651(a) Petitioner did not file a Federal income tax return for 1990.

For purposes of section 6651(a), an estate may establish reasonable cause for a late filing and/or a late payment if the facts show that the fiduciary reasonably relied on erroneous professional advice as to a due date of a return (which, in the case of the Federal estate tax return, is generally also the due date of the related tax).

Section 6651(a)(1) Under section 6651(a) a taxpayer is liable for an addition to tax if he fails to file a timely tax return.

Respondent also determined a deficiency against Robert Ward, Jr., and Swanette Triem Ward of $4,890 and an addition to the tax under section 6651(a)(1) for failure to timely file and an accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a).

es that “[a]ny return so made and subscribed by the Secretary shall be prima facie good and sufficient for all legal purposes.” We have consistently held that a return prepared and executed by the Commissioner under section 6020(b) consti- tutes the taxpayer’s “return” for the year at issue, e.g., for purposes of imposing the addition to tax under section 6651(a)(2) for failure to pay timely “the amount - 31 - shown as tax on any return.” See Wheeler v.

We have held that, as part of that burden, the Commissioner must introduce evidence showing that the taxpayer did not file his return (or a request for extension of time) by the original due date of the return. Wheeler v. Commissioner, 127 T.C. 200, 207-208 (2006), aff’d, 521 F.3d 1289 (10th Cir. 2008). Petitioner’s Form 1040 was due April 15, 2016. Respondent produced petitioner’s 2015 Form 1040, and petitioner confirmed that he did not sign and mail it until over a year after the deadline, on

ax, the assessment period remains open. See secs. 6501(c)(1), 7454(a); Rule 142(b). Petitioners untimely filed their 2005 joint Federal income tax return. Pursuant to section 7491(c), respondent bears and has met his burden of production relating to section 6651(a). Petitioners' failure to timely file their return was the result ofwillful neglect, not reasonable cause. Accordingly, petitioners are liable for the section 6651(a)(1) addition to tax relating to 2005. Contentions we have not address

The burden ofshowing reasonable cause under section 6651(a) remains on the taxpayer.

Fraudulent Failure To File Section 6651(a) imposes an addition to tax for the failure to timely file tax returns, and that addition is enhancedunder section 6651(f) ifthat failure to file is fraudulent.

Section 7491(c) places the burden on the Commissionerto produce sufficient evidence to support the imposition ofan addition to tax. See Hiabee v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 438, 446 (2001). However, once the Commissionerhas met the burden ofproduction, the burden ofproofremains with the taxpayerto raise any issues that would negate the ap

--- MAJORITY --- OPINION Chiechi, Judge: Respondent determined a deficiency under section 4979A(a) in, and an addition under section 6651(a)(1) to, petitioner’s Federal excise tax (excise tax) of $200,750 and $50,187.50, respectively, for petitioner’s taxable year 2005.

Held, further, P is sanctioned for maintaining frivolous positions. Arnold Bruce Winslow, pro se. Mayer Y. Silber and Robert M. Romashko, for respondent. HALPERN, Judge: By notices ofdeficiency dated May 9, 2011 (notices), respondent determined deficiencies in, and additions to, petitioner's 2005 and 2006 Federal income tax as follows:1 Additions to tax Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a)(1) Sec. 6651(a)(2) 2005 $2,706 $479 $532 2006 2,491 441 461 Petitioner assigned error to those determinations, aver

Section 6651(a) Addition to Tax Section 6651(a) ir iposes an addition to tax for failure to file an income tax return by the time prescribed by;1aw unless the taxpayerproves that such failure is due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect. See United States v. Boyle, 469 U.S. 241, 245 (1985); McGowan v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2009-172. Respon

Section 6651(a)(1) Addition to Tax Section 6651(a)(1.) provides for an addition to tax in the event a taxpayer fails to file a timely return (determined with regard to any extension oftime for - 8 - [*8] filing) unless the taxpayer shows that such failure is due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect.

SERVED JUL 23208 - 2 - MEMORAN UM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION KROUPA, Judae: Respondent determined the following deficiencies, accuracy-relatedpenalties under section 6662(a)2 and additions to tax under section 6651(a): Pet tioners Stephan Brennan and Beth Brennan Additionto tax Year Deficiency Sec.

ld, for respondent . MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION MARVEL, Judge: Respondent determined the following deficiencies in and additions to petitioner's 2004-2006 Federal income taxes: SERVED FEB -1 7.011 - 2 - Additions to Tax Year Deficienay Sec. 6651(a) (1) Sec. 6651(a) (2) Sec. 6654 2004 $17,226 $2,076 $2,215 239 2005 16,4s14 1,760 1,252 -0- 2006 11,601- 1,383 615 262 The issues for decision are: (1) Whether petitioner is liable for Federal income tax deficiencies for 2004-2006, (2) whe

For 2007 petitioner failed to file a return, and respondent determined a deficiency of $38,176 and additions to tax under section 6651(a) (1) of $8,589, section 6651(a) (2),2 and section 6654 of $179.

, respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner' s 2005 Federal income tax and imposed additions to tax as follows:1 1Unless otherwise indicated, section references are to the (continued. . . ) agavmo £EP 1 2011 - 2 - Additions to Tax Deficiency Sec. 6651(a) (1) Sec. 6651(a) (2) Sec. 6654 $39,716 $8,936.10 $4,765.92 $1,593.09 With the exception of the above-listed additions to tax, issues relating to adjustments made in the notice of deficiency have been resolved by the parties. The issues ad

For 2007 petitioner failed to file a return, and respondent determined a deficiency of $38,176 and additions to tax under section 6651(a) (1) of $8,589, section 6651(a) (2),2 and section 6654 of $179.

Respondent determined deficiencies in petitioners' Federal income taxes for the taxable years 1998, 1999, and 2001 of.$13,530, $7,013, and $751, respectively, as SERED FEB 1 72011 well as a $3,383 addition to tax under section 6651(a) (1)1 for 1998-.

ndent determined deficiencies and additions to tax in petitioner's 2006 and 2007 Federal income taxes as follows: IThese cases were consolidated for purposes of trial, briefing, and opinion. SERVED Jun 28 2011 - 2 - Additions to Tax Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a) (1) Sec. 6651(a) (:2) Sec. 6654 2006 $16,479 $884 $648 $120 2007 15,007 1,842 860 338 Respondent also determined that petitioner was liable for penalties under section 6702(a)2 for filing frivolous 2006 and 2007 Federal income tax returns

Such a`return, if it meets the requirements of section 6020(b), is treated as the return filed by the taxpayer for the purposes of the section 6651(a)(2 ) addition to tax .

Section 6651(a)(2 ) Section 6651(a)(2) provides for an addition to tax where 11 payment of the amount reported as tax on a return is not timely "unless it is shown that such failure is due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect" . With respect to the section 6651(a)(2) addition to tax, the Commissioner must introduce evidence that the t

S TAX COURT HARRY EUGENE MATHEWS, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 3074-09. - Filed October 19, 2010. After P failed to file his 2004 tax return, R determined a deficiency in income tax and additions to tax under sec. 6651(a) (1) and (2), I.R.C. P contested the deficiency, arguing that a State court garnishment order was fraudulent and improperly caused the payment of his military retirement funds to his former spouse and that he should not be taxed on these

Section 6651(a).(1) imposes an addition to .tax for failure to file an income tax return by the due date . A taxpayer may be relieved of the addition , however, if he can demonstrate that the "failure is due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect" . Id .' Respondent bears the burden of production under section 7491(c), and petitioners b

155. Unless otherwise indicated, all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, and all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code (Code), as amended. Respondent has conceded that petitioner is not liable for the sec. 6651(a) delinquency addition to tax. “Qui tam” is an abbreviation of the Latin phrase “qui tam pro domino rege quam pro se ipso in hac parte sequitur”, which means “who pursues this action on our Lord the King’s behalf as well as his own.” Vt. A

--- MAJORITY --- OPINION Gustafson, Judge: By a statutory notice of deficiency dated October 26, 2009, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) determined a deficiency of $1,201 in petitioner Dennis Klein’s 2006 Federal income tax, with additions to tax totaling $438.37 pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) and (2) of the Internal Revenue Code (“I.R.C.”, 26 U.S.C.).

If a taxpayer assigns error to the Commissioner’s determination that the taxpayer is liable for the addition to tax, the Commissioner has the burden, under section 7491(c), of producing evidence to show that the section 6651(a) addition to tax applies.

The issues for decision are : a b (l)--°Whether petitioner was required to include $26,881 in s w.,....41t wages in his 2000 gross income ; (2)~whether petitioner is liable under section 6651(a)(1 ) for a $549 .22 addition to tax ; (3)--whether petitioner is liable under section 6651(a)(2 ) .., for- a(cid:127){ $6110 .25 addition to tax; (4) whether petitioner is liable'under section 6654(a) for a $128 .19 addition to tax; and (5) whether the Court should impose a penalty on petitioner .under se

Section 6651(a)(1 ) Respondent determined that petitioner is liable for additions to tax under section 6651(a)(1) for 2002 and 2005 . Section 6651(a)(1) imposes an addition to tax -for failure to file a return on. the date prescribed (determined with regard to any extension of time for filing), unless the taxpayer can establish that such failure is

' Consequently, we conclude that the Bells are liable for the section 6651(a)(1 ) addition to tax for 1996 .

Additions to Tax Respondent determined that petitioner is liable for additions to tax under section 6651(a)( ) for failure to file an income tax return for 2002 and under section 6651(a)(2) for failure to pay the tax due .

ecision are : (1) Whether $52,327 .73 in wage income and $430 .84 (rounded off by respondent to $430) in dividend income were includable in petitioner's 2004 taxable income ;3 (2) whether petitioner is liable for an addition to tax of $983 .48 under section 6651(a) (1) ;4 ' Because $3,573 .81 in Federal income tax had been withheld from petitioner's wages, her balance due was shown as $4,371, but should be $4,370 on account of the dividend and withholding rounding .

Makarewicz , for responde MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION COHEN, Judge : Respondent determine a deficiency of $2,293 and an addition to tax of $573 .25 for fa lure to file a timely return pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) wi h regard to petitioners' Federal income tax liability for 2002 .

To determine whether a document that a taxpayer files constitutes a valid return for purposes of section 6651(a), we follow the test in Beard v.

Addition to Tax Under Section 6651(a)(1 ) Section 6651(a)(1) imposes an addition to tax for failure to file a return when due "unless it is shown that such failure is due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect" .

flected in respondent's records . Petitioner contends that his failure to file returns timely and timely pay taxes was due to personal circumstances during the years at issue and that these circumstances constituted reasonable cause for purposes of section 6651(a) . Specifically, petitioner claims that hi s marriage was ending, the firms he was associated with were collapsing around him, or not following through on promised remuneration, and he was in the midst of a significantly over-budget reh

SEfVEC OCT 2 5 2007 - 2 - penalty of $91,498 .20, and a section 6651(a)(1) addition to tax of $22,693 .10 for failure to file timely .

imposes a penalty of up to 75 percent f the amount of -8- tax required to be shown on the tax return if a taxpayer fails to file a required return due to fraud . Alternatively, respondent asserts that petitioner is liable for additions to tax under section 6651(a) . Section 6651(a) imposes an addition to tax of up to 25 percent of the amount required to be shown as tax if a taxpayer fails to file a timely return. Petitioner concedes that he received significant income each year from 1999 through

Addition to Tax Under Section 6651(a)(2 ) Section 6651(a)(2) imposes an addition to tax for failure to pay the amount shown as a tax on a return by the date prescribed (determined with regard to any extension of time for payment) .

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION VASQUEZ, Judge : Respondent determined an $11,038 deficiency and a $1,431 .50 addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1)1 in petitioner's 2001 Federal income tax .

The burden of showing reasonable cause under section 6651(a) remains on the taxpayer.

Additions to Tax Under Section 6651(a)(1 ) Section 6651(a)(1) imposes an addition to tax for failure to file a return when due "unless it is shown that such failure is due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect" .

C. Plovan, for respondent. MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION CHIECHI, Judge: Respondent determined the following defi- ciency in, and additions to, petitioner's Federal income tax (tax) : SERVED MAY 1 6 - 2 - Additions to Tax Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a) (1)1 Sec. 6651(a) (2) Sec. 6654 (a) 1994 $60,217 $7,303.95 $6,979.33 $1,513.69 The issues remaining for decision are:2 (1) Is petitioner required to include in gross income for 1994 $170,000 paid during that year by the State of Maryland

Thus, respondent has not met the burden of production under section 7491(c) with respect to the addition to tax for failure to pay under section 6651(a)(2 ) Petitioner made no argument that he was not liable for the additions to tax for 2002 for failure to file under section 6651 (a)(1), or failure to pay estimated tax under section 6654 .

0 distribution from 1(...continued) as amended, and all.Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Amounts are rounded to the nearest dollar. 2 Respondent concedes that petitioner is not liable for an addition to tax under sec. 6651(a) (2) and, as a result, seeks to increase the addition to tax under sec. 6651(a)(1) to $344. - 3 - the first Star Bank IRA. On April 30, 1996, petitioner made a $7,000 contribution to the second Star Bank IRA. On June 17, 1996, petitioner

system is “voluntary” cannot serve as a reasonable basis for his failure to file. Petitioner’s belief that the Fifth Amendment’s self- incrimination provision protected him from filing a tax return is not a reasonable basis for failure to file under section 6651(a). See Woods v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 88, 91-92 (1988); Thompson v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. 558, 563 (1982). Petitioner testified that he is not currently under criminal investigation. Nevertheless, petitioner believes the Fifth Amendment

dition to tax for failure to timely file and timely pay because it was first raised in respondent’s answer under Rule 142(a). Petitioners relied on the automatic extension for 1998 as a defense to the addition to tax for failure to timely file under section 6651(a). Reliance on an automatic extension is not reasonable cause for a taxpayer's failure to timely file a return or timely pay if the taxpayer failed to properly estimate his or her tax liability in requesting the extension. Crocker v. Co

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION COLVIN, Judge: Respondent determined deficiencies in petitioners' income tax of $186,536 for 1997 and $269,225 for 1998 and that petitioners are liable for the addition to tax for late filing under section 6651(a) (1)¹ of $45,384 for 1997 and ¹ Unless otherwise stated, section references are to the (continued.

We conclude that petitioner is liable for the addition to tax under section 6651(a) for failure to file for 1998.

With respect to section 6651(a) penalties, reliance on misguided constitutional beliefs is not reasonable.

Section 6651(a) provides for a 5-percent addition to tax for each month or portion thereof that the return is filed late, not to exceed 25 percent in the aggregate, imposed upon a taxpayer for failure to timely file a tax return, unless such failure to file is due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect. Although not defined in the Code,

On June 8, 2004, respondent sent petitioner a notice of deficiency listing a deficiency of $21,518, an addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1)1 of $6,240.22, and an addition to tax pursuant to section 6654(a) of $719.07 for 2002.

s: Additions to Tax Deficiency Sec. 6651(a)(1)1 Sec. 6654 $42,165 $10,541 $1,929 Floors by Harlan, Jody Edwards, Trustee: Penalty Deficiency Sec. 6662(a) $30,232 $6,046 1 In his answer, respondent asserted a modification to the addition to tax under sec. 6651(a) determined in Harlan D. Edwards’s notice of deficiency, proposing instead a revised amount under sec. 6651(a)(1) coupled with an addition to tax pursuant to sec. 6651(a)(2). On brief, respondent does not address the asserted sec. 6651(a)

Section 6651(a) imposes an addition to tax for failure to file a return in the amount of 5 percent of the tax liability required to be shown on the return for each month during which such failure continues, but not exceeding 25 percent in the aggregate, unless it is shown that such failure is due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect.

Whether petitioner is liable for additions to tax for failure to file under section 6651(a) and for failure to pay estimated tax under section 6654(a).

Accordingly, respondent has met his burden of production for the section 6651(a) (1) addition to tax for 1997.

Additions to Tax Section 6651(a) provides for a 5-percent addition to tax for each month or portion thereof that the tax return is filed late, not to exceed 25 percent in the aggregate, unless such failure to file is due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect.

Section 6651(a)(1) Addition to Tax Section 6651(a) imposes an addition to tax for failure to file a return in the amount of 5 percent of the tax liability required to be shown on the return for each month during which such failure continues, but not exceeding 25 percent in the aggregate, unless it is shown that such failure is due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect.

6654 1999 $4,107 $427.25 -- 2000 9,772 1,908.50 $395.08 After a concession by respondent with respect to 2000, the recalculated amounts for the deficiency, section 6651(a) addition to tax, and section 6654 addition to tax for that year are $6,921, $1,195.75, and $242.81, respectively.

Respondent has met the burden of production under section 7491(c) as to the additions to tax under section 6651(a) for failure to file for 1994, 1996, and 1997, and under section 6654 for failure to pay 5 Petitioners do not contend and have offered no evidence showing that sec.

Section 6651(a) provides that there will be a 5-percent addition to tax for each month the return is late, not to exceed 25 percent in the aggregate, imposed upon a taxpayer for failure to file a tax return or pay tax, unless such failure to file is due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect. Although not defined in the Code, “reasonabl

Respondent determined a $97,021 deficiency, a $4,851 penalty pursuant to section 6651(a)(1), and a $19,404 penalty pursuant to section 6662(a) for 1995.

899 -- 16,719 1Respondent determined that petitioner was liable for the addition to tax under sec. 6651(a)(1) for each of the years 1988- 90 in an amended answer. Respondent, therefore, bears the burden of proof with respect to the imposition of the sec. 6651(a) addition to tax for those years. Rule 142(a). Docket No. 23054-96 Delinquency Negligence Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a)(1) Sec. 6653(a)(1) 1987 $55,459 $13,865 1$2,773 1For 1987, in addition to imposing the 5-percent negligence addition to

ated penalties, and additions to tax/fraud penalties pursuant to sections 6653(b) and 66633 for the docket numbers, taxable years, and in the following amounts as stated: Eric B. Benson, Docket No. 585-98: 1Additions to Tax/Penalties Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a) Sec. 6663(a) 1993 $236,997 $59,793 $177,748 1Respondent asserts the accuracy related penalties as an alternative in the event that the Court does not find fraud. Brad D. Benson, Docket No. 19416-98: Penalty Year Deficiency Sec. 6662(a) 1

In separate notices of deficiency, respondent determined: (1) Deficiencies of $8,174 and $1,616 for 1988 and 1989, respectively; (2) additions to tax pursuant to section 6651(a) of $1,646 and $276.25 for 1988 and 1989, respectively; and an addition to tax pursuant to section 6654(a) of $409.39 for 1988.

ated penalties, and additions to tax/fraud penalties pursuant to sections 6653(b) and 66633 for the docket numbers, taxable years, and in the following amounts as stated: Eric B. Benson, Docket No. 585-98: 1Additions to Tax/Penalties Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a) Sec. 6663(a) 1993 $236,997 $59,793 $177,748 1Respondent asserts the accuracy related penalties as an alternative in the event that the Court does not find fraud. Brad D. Benson, Docket No. 19416-98: Penalty Year Deficiency Sec. 6662(a) 1

Respondent at the same time assessed an addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a) of $69.97.

Petitioner's good-faith belief that he was not required to file tax returns does not constitute reasonable cause under section 6651(a) (1) unless bolstered by advice from compete.nt tax counsel who has been informed of all the relevant facts.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION COLVIN, Judge: Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner's Federal income tax of $3,875 for 1997 and an addition to tax for failure to timely file under section 6651(a) (1) of $305.

ated penalties, and additions to tax/fraud penalties pursuant to sections 6653(b) and 66633 for the docket numbers, taxable years, and in the following amounts as stated: Eric B. Benson, Docket No. 585-98: 1Additions to Tax/Penalties Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a) Sec. 6663(a) 1993 $236,997 $59,793 $177,748 1Respondent asserts the accuracy related penalties as an alternative in the event that the Court does not find fraud. Brad D. Benson, Docket No. 19416-98: Penalty Year Deficiency Sec. 6662(a) 1

899 -- 16,719 1Respondent determined that petitioner was liable for the addition to tax under sec. 6651(a)(1) for each of the years 1988- 90 in an amended answer. Respondent, therefore, bears the burden of proof with respect to the imposition of the sec. 6651(a) addition to tax for those years. Rule 142(a). Docket No. 23054-96 Delinquency Negligence Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a)(1) Sec. 6653(a)(1) 1987 $55,459 $13,865 1$2,773 1For 1987, in addition to imposing the 5-percent negligence addition to

We hold that petitioner is liable for the addition to tax under section 6651(a), but hold that petitioner is not liable for the 2 The parties stipulated at trial that petitioner did not receive wages from Sunshine Cos.

“Reasonable cause” contemplates that the taxpayer exercised ordinary business care and prudence and was nonetheless unable to file a return within the prescribed time, United States v. Boyle, 469 U.S. 241, 246 (1985); sec. 301.6651- 1(c)(1), Proced. & Admin. Regs., and “willful neglect” means a conscious, intentional failure or reckle

As is true with respect to an addition to tax under section 6651(a), a taxpayer may avoid an addition to tax under section 6656 if the taxpayer’s failure to deposit a tax was due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect.

At trial, petitioner indicated that the outstanding 1996 liability roughly approximated the “late filing penalty” imposed pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) and, for the most part, limited her claim to - 8 - relief from that “penalty”.

Section 6651(a) (1) imposes an addition to tax for failing to file a tax return on or before the specified filing date unless the taxpayer establishes that the failure "is due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect". Sec. 6651(a)(1); see United States v. Boyle, 469 U.S. 241, 245 (1985). Respondent offered into evidence Form 3050, Certif

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION LARO, Judge: Petitioners petitioned the Court to redetermine a $29,771 deficiency in their 1997 Federal income tax, a $4,115 addition thereto under section 6651(a)(1), and a $4,517 accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a).

Respondent also determined additions to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) for 1992 and 1994 of $3,557 and $5,029, respectively.

Alternatively, respondent determined that petitioner is liable for an addition to tax for failure to timely file under section 6651(a) and an accuracy- related penalty under section 6662(a) for 1993-95.

Respondent also determined additions to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) for 1992 and 1994 of $3,557 and $5,029, respectively.

can avoid the addition to tax. Sec. 6651(a)(1). Petitioner offered no evidence showing that his failure to file was due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect. Accordingly, we hold that petitioner is liable for the additions to tax under section 6651(a). IV. Penalties A. Section 6662 Respondent determined that petitioner is liable for accuracy-related penalties under section 6662(a) and (b)(1) for 1996, 1997, and 2000. Section 6662(a) imposes a penalty in the amount of 20 percent on

h quarter of 1993. Petitioner’s request for abatement was considered and denied by respondent’s Appeals Office by letter dated September 24, 1999. Nevertheless, on October 25, 1999, respondent partially abated an addition to tax assessed pursuant to section 6651(a)(2). - 5 - OPINION In general, interest on a Federal tax liability begins to accrue from the last date prescribed for payment of such tax and continues to accrue, compounding daily, until payment is made. See secs. 6601(a), 6622. Altho

As is true with respect to an addition to tax under section 6651(a), a taxpayer may avoid an addition to tax under section 6656 if the taxpayer’s failure to deposit a tax was due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect.

Respondent's determination that they are liable for the addition to tax under section 6651(a) is sustained.

6663 1993 $43,048 $32,286 Alternatively, respondent also determined that Vortex was liable for the addition to tax under section 6651(a) if we conclude that Vortex is not liable for the penalty under section 6651(f) for its FYE 1993 and that the Zhadanovs were liable for accuracy- related penalties under section 6662(a) if we conclude that they 2Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code for the years in issue, and all Rule re

If a taxpayer exercised ordinary business care and prudence and was nonetheless unable to file the return within the date prescribed by law, then reasonable cause exists. Sec. 301.6651-1(c)(1), Proced. & Admin. Regs. "Willful neglect" means a "conscious, intentional failure or reckless indifference." United States v. Boyle, 469 U.S. 2

Whether Petitioners Are Liable for the Addition to Tax for Failure To Timely File Their 1994 Income Tax Return Respondent determined and contends that petitioners are liable for the addition to tax under section 6651(a) for failure to timely file their income tax return for 1994.

Whether Petitioners Are Liable for the Addition to Tax for Failure To Timely File Their 1994 Income Tax Return Respondent determined and contends that petitioners are liable for the addition to tax under section 6651(a) for failure to timely file their income tax return for 1994.

6663 1993 $43,048 $32,286 Alternatively, respondent also determined that Vortex was liable for the addition to tax under section 6651(a) if we conclude that Vortex is not liable for the penalty under section 6651(f) for its FYE 1993 and that the Zhadanovs were liable for accuracy- .

Whether Petitioner Is Liable for the Addition to Tax for Failure To Timely File His 1997 Income Tax Return Respondent contends that petitioner is liable for the addition to tax under section 6651(a) for failure to timely file his income tax return for 1997.

titioner’s Federal income taxes:1 1All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the taxable years at issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. - 2 - Addition to tax Year Deficiency sec. 6651(a)(1) 1993 $17,176 $836 1994 16,430 693 After concessions,2 the sole issue for decision is whether the refund of overpayments made by petitioner in 1993 and 1994 is barred by the operation of sections 6511 and 6512(b). We hold that it is. FI

Year Deficiency 6651(a)(1) 6654 6651(f) 1994 $649 $49 —0- -0- 1995 7,832 -0- $425 $5,874 1996 7,719 —0- 411 5,785 1997 7,591 —0- 406 5,693 In the answer, respondent conceded that neither petitioner is liable for the additions to tax under section 6651(f) and alleged that they are liable under section 6651(a) for additions to their 1995, 1996, and 1997 taxes.

In the notice of deficiency, in addition to the imposition of an addition to tax under section 6651(a) and an accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a), respondent increased their self-employment income by the net business income of Denali Company Trust.

As to respondent’s determination under section 6651(a), petitioners are liable for that addition to tax unless they prove that their failure to file the 1997 Federal income tax return timely was: (1) Due to reasonable cause and (2) not due to willful neglect.

Respondent also determined additions to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) and penalties pursuant to section 6662.

In the notice of deficiency, in addition to the imposition of an addition to tax under section 6651(a) and an accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a), respondent increased their self-employment income by the net business income of Denali Company Trust.

ued...) BERVED FEB 2 8 2001 farm equipment during 1990 under section 108(a)(1)(C) as qualified farm indebtedness;³ (3) whether petitioner is entitled to deduct expenses incurred in connection with services rendered on behalf of the tribe or the tribal council during 1993 and 1994;4 (4) whether petitioner is liable for additions to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) for failure to file returns for 1990, 1991, 1993, and 1994; and (5).

Whether Petitioner Is Liable for the Addition to Tax for Failure To File Her 1993 Income Tax Return Respondent determined that petitioner is liable for the addition to tax under section 6651(a) for failure to file a return for 1993.

imely manner or whether there was a reasonable cause for the untimely filing. We find that respondent has not discharged his burden, and therefore, we do not sustain respondent’s determination that petitioner is liable for the addition to tax under section 6651(a). 6. Relief From Joint Liability on a Joint Return On March 13, 2000, petitioner filed with the Commissioner a Form 8857, Request for Innocent Spouse Relief, electing the application of section 6015(c) to 1992 and requesting that any de

The addition to tax imposed under each paragraph of section 6651(a) applies "unless it is shown that such failure is due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect." The burden is on the taxpayer to prove that the failure is due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect.

ffect for the subject years. Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Dollar amounts are rounded. 2 The pleadings in this case raise three additional issues: (1) Whether petitioner is liable for the addition to tax under sec. 6651(a), (2) whether petitioner is liable for the accuracy- related penalties under sec. 6662(a), and (3) whether respondent is barred by the period of limitation under sec. 6501 from assessing tax for the subject years. As to the first of these

The addition to tax for failure to file, section 6651(a), and not the addition to tax for fraud, (former) section 6653(b), is an issue.

Respondent also determined an addition to tax of $16,295 pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) and an accuracy-related penalty of $12,949 under section 6662(a).

imely manner or whether there was a reasonable cause for the untimely filing. We find that respondent has not discharged his burden, and therefore, we do not sustain respondent’s determination that petitioner is liable for the addition to tax under section 6651(a). 6. Relief From Joint Liability on a Joint Return On March 13, 2000, petitioner filed with the Commissioner a Form 8857, Request for Innocent Spouse Relief, electing the application of section 6015(c) to 1992 and requesting that any de

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION COLVIN, Judge: Respondent determined deficiencies in petitioner’s income tax of $13,858 for 1993 and $24,697.91 for 1994, additions to tax for failure to timely file under section 6651(a) of $1,386 for 1993 and $6,175 for 1994, and an accuracy- related penalty of $2,772 for 1993 and $4,939 for 1994 for a substantial understatement of tax under section 6662(a).

In addition to the accuracy-related penalties for 1992 and 1993, respondent determined an addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a) for late filing for 1993.

Lobe) that he was liable for deficiencies of $47,563 and $29,296, failure to file additions to tax of $11,879 and $6,592 under - 2 - section 6651(a), and additions to tax of $2,576 and $1,559 under section 6654.

ved as her separate property an interest in ex-husband’s military pension, and payments by ex-husband to her pursuant to agreement were gross income to her pursuant to sec. 61(a)(11), I.R.C. 2. Held, further, P is liable for an addition to tax under sec. 6651(a), I.R.C., and a penalty under sec. 6662(a), I.R.C. Bruce A. Meyers, for petitioner. David A. Conrad, for respondent. - 2 - MEMORANDUM OPINION HALPERN, Judge: By notice of deficiency dated January 22, 1999 (the notice), respondent determin

Addition to Tax for Failure To Timely File Under Section 6651(a)(1) Respondent determined and contends that petitioner is liable for the addition to tax under section 6651(a) for failure to timely file his income tax return for 1994.

6654(a) 1991 $43,671 $32,753 $2,496 1992 41,045 30,784 1,790 1993 50,049 37,537 2,097 1994 68,890 51,667 3,575 1995 76,387 57,290 4,142 1 The notice of deficiency states that if “it is determined the failure to file is not due to fraud, then the delinquency penalty rate of 25 percent, per Internal Revenue Code Section 6651(a) would be applicable.” In his answer to Robert L.

oners have presented no persuasive evidence on this issue, and the record does not otherwise establish that their failure to file timely returns was due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect. We sustain respondent’s determinations under section 6651(a). As to respondent’s determinations under section 6654, section 6654(a) provides for an addition to tax "in the case of any underpayment of estimated tax by an individual". Generally, this addition to tax is mandatory, and there is no

ion date. R determined that decedent's gross estate must be valued as of the date of decedent's death, because the executor's alternate valuation election was invalid. Furthermore, R determined that the estate is liable for the addition to tax under sec. 6651(a), I.R.C., for the failure to file a timely return. Held, the estate must value all property included in the gross estate as of the date of decedent's death because the executor made the alternate valuation election more than 1 year after

DINGS OF FACT AND OPINION CHABOT, Judge: Respondent determined deficiencies in Federal individual income tax and an addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1)1 (late filing of tax return) against petitioner as follows: Addition to Tax Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a) 1993 $3,517 $879 1994 18,887 0 1 Unless indicated otherwise, all section and chapter references are to sections and chapters of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as in effect for the years in issue. - 3 - After concessions by both sides,2

on, pro se. Guy H. Glaser, for respondent. MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION GERBER, Judge: In a notice of deficiency addressed to petitioner, respondent determined deficiencies and additions to tax as follows: Additions to Tax Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a) Sec. 6654(a) 1993 $8,740 $2,185 $366.16 1994 2,143 450 -–- - 2 - After concessions,1 the issues for our consideration are: (1) Whether petitioner is entitled to any Schedule A itemized deductions for the taxable years 1993 and 1994; (2)

Consequently, we find that petitioner has failed to carry her burden of proving respondent's determination incorrect, and we sustain respondent's determination that petitioner realized income during 1994 from the cancellation of indebtedness in the amountof $50,000.S Addition to Tax Under Section 6651(a) Respondent also determined that petitioner is liable for the addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1).

. Hunter, Deceased, Shirley Hunter, Administratrix, docket No. 3658-98; and EV Hunter Trust, Shirley M. Hunter and T. William Dowdy, Co-Trustees, docket No. 3676-98. - 2 - Re: Edith H. Hornberger, docket No. 3656-98: Addition to Tax Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a) 1992 $744,724 $47,810 Re: Estate of Edna B. Hunter, Deceased, Shirley M. Hunter Administratrix, docket No. 3658-98: Addition to Tax Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a) 1992 $722,052 $180,513 Re: EV Hunter Trust, Shirley M. Hunter and T. William

Addition to Tax Under Section 6651(a)(1) Respondent determined additions to tax under section 6651(a) for petitioner’s failure to file his 1986 through 1995 Federal income tax returns.

. Hunter, Deceased, Shirley Hunter, Administratrix, docket No. 3658-98; and EV Hunter Trust, Shirley M. Hunter and T. William Dowdy, Co-Trustees, docket No. 3676-98. - 2 - Re: Edith H. Hornberger, docket No. 3656-98: Addition to Tax Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a) 1992 $744,724 $47,810 Re: Estate of Edna B. Hunter, Deceased, Shirley M. Hunter Administratrix, docket No. 3658-98: Addition to Tax Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a) 1992 $722,052 $180,513 Re: EV Hunter Trust, Shirley M. Hunter and T. William

Section 6651(a) provides for an addition to tax for failure to file timely Federal income tax returns unless there is reasonable cause for such failure. Section 6654(a) generally - 9 - imposes an addition to tax for failure to pay estimated income taxes. For 1994 only, petitioner offers the excuse that the seizure of his business records in 1995 a

for the taxable years 1992 through 1996. R determined deficiencies for individual income taxes and self-employment taxes attributable to compensation, interest, dividends, and capital gain received by P. R further determined an addition to tax under sec. 6651(a), I.R.C., for failure to file. Held: P is subject to Federal income tax statutes and is liable for the deficiencies determined by R. Held, further, P is liable for the sec. 6651(a), I.R.C., delinquency addition to tax for failure to file.

Federal income tax as follows: Michael J. and Michelle R. Friscia, docket No. 19973-98: Accuracy-Related Penalty Year Deficiency Sec. 6662(a) 1994 $41,904 $8,380.80 Michael J. Friscia, docket No. 19975-98: Addition to Tax and Penalty Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a) Sec. 6662(a) 1995 $21,350 $2,146.10 $4,270 Friscia Construction, Inc., docket No. 19874-98: Fiscal Year Addition to Tax and Penalty Ended Deficiency Sec. 6651(a) Sec. 6662(a) 6/30/95 $84,814 $21,203.50 $16,963.80 Unless otherwise indicat

It is well settled that in order to avoid the addition to tax prescribed by section 6651(a), petitioner bears the burden of proving both (1) that the failure did not result from “willful neglect,” and (2) that the failure was “due to reasonable cause.” Sec.

Additions to Tax Section 6651(a)(1) imposes an addition to tax for the failure to file an income tax return within the time prescribed by law, unless it is shown that the failure is due to reasonable cause and not to willful neglect.

Ps are liable for the accuracy- related penalties for negligence or intentional disregard of rules or regulations determined by R under sec. 6662(a), I.R.C.; L also is liable for the addition to tax for failure to file timely determined by R under sec. 6651(a), I.R.C. Held, further, no P is liable for a penalty under sec. 6673(a)(1)(B), I.R.C. Neil L. Prupis, Kevin L. Smith, and Theresa Borzelli, for petitioners. Randall P. Andreozzi, Peter J. Gavagan, Mark A. Ericson, and Matthew I. Root, for

- 3 - under section 6651(a)2 for failure to timely file his Federal income tax returns for the taxable years in issue.

alternative, that the amount of any addition to tax for failure to timely file the estate tax return should be less than 25 percent because the tax return was not filed more than 4 months late or because of the interplay of paragraphs (1) and (2) of sec. 6651(a). See sec. 6651(c)(1). As a result, we do not consider any such issue. However, we treat as implicit in the pleadings, and petitioner notes on opening brief, the alternative computational contention that the amount of the sec. 6651(a)(1)

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION CHIECHI, Judge: Respondent determined for the year ended January 31, 1994, a deficiency in petitioner’s Federal income tax (tax) in the amount of $399,152 and an addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1)1 and an accuracy-related penalty under section 1All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in (continued...) - 2 - 6662(a) in the amounts of $14,495 and $79,830, respectively.

tion filed in this Court (docket No. 22961-88) for tax year 1980. We hold that he did not, and thus, we will dismiss petitioner from that case.3 2. Whether petitioner is liable for the addition to tax for failure to timely file his 1981 return under section 6651(a). We hold that he is. 3. Whether petitioner is liable for the addition to tax for negligence for 1981 and 1982 under section 6653(a)(1). We hold that he is. 2 References to petitioner are to Alfred J. Martin. Section references are to

Addition to Tax Under Section 6651 Respondent determined an addition to tax under section 6651(a) for petitioner’s failure to file his 1994 Federal income tax return timely based upon a rate of 25 percent.

Federal income tax as follows: Michael J. and Michelle R. Friscia, docket No. 19973-98: Accuracy-Related Penalty Year Deficiency Sec. 6662(a) 1994 $41,904 $8,380.80 Michael J. Friscia, docket No. 19975-98: Addition to Tax and Penalty Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a) Sec. 6662(a) 1995 $21,350 $2,146.10 $4,270 Friscia Construction, Inc., docket No. 19874-98: Fiscal Year Addition to Tax and Penalty Ended Deficiency Sec. 6651(a) Sec. 6662(a) 6/30/95 $84,814 $21,203.50 $16,963.80 Unless otherwise indicat

On October 28, 1998, respondent issued a notice of deficiency to petitioner determining a deficiency in his Federal income tax for 1996 of $21,799 and an addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) in the amount of $4,904.77.

Petitioners petitioned the Court to redetermine a $1,072,177 deficiency in their 1993 Federal income tax, a $268,044 addition thereto under section 6651(a)(1), and a $214,435 accuracy-related penalty under section 6662.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION GERBER, Judge: Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner’s 1992 Federal income tax of $12,186, a penalty pursuant to section 6662(a)1 of $2,437.20, and a late-filing addition pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) of $3,046.50.

21,354 1991 66,964 13,393 1992 25,733 5,147 1993 31,803 6,361 Henry and Esther Misle, Docket No. 16657-98 Penalty Year Deficiency Sec. 6662(a) 1994 $67,902 $13,428 1996 71,900 14,380 Henry Misle, Docket No. 16658-98 Additions to Tax Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a) Sec. 6654 1995 $62,797 $15,591 $3,422 2All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Monetary amounts are rounded t

In the case of Lakewood, respondent also determined that it was liable for a 15-percent addition to tax under section 6651(a) for failure to file timely its 1992 Federal income tax return and a section 6621 increased rate of interest on its 1991 deficiency as to interest accruing after July 20, 1995.

6651(a) 6653(a) Sec. 6653(a)(1)(B) Sec. 6659 Sec. 6661 Additional interest sec. 6621(c) 1980 $3,917 --- --- --- --- --- 1981 17 1982 1,248 1983 11,334 $1,043 1984 1,196 1985 4,662 1986 8,068 139 1987 54,708 7,402 $2,760 $16,412 $13,677 1988 52,048 8,981 2,670 15,614 13,012 Penalties Sec. 6662(h) Sec. 6662(e) Sec. 6662(d) Sec. 6662(c) 1989 $43,

ber 14, 1999. Following disallowance by R of amounts deducted as business expenses, P entered into a stipulation agreeing to an additional tax of $17,823 for the taxable year 1995. P, however, challenged R’s determination of an addition to tax under sec. 6651(a), I.R.C., for failure to timely file, and an accuracy-related penalty under sec. 6662(a), I.R.C., on account of negligence and a substantial understatement of income tax. P contended that any untimeliness and inaccuracies were excused by

petitioners' claim to abate interest relating to petitioners’ 1990 tax year was an abuse of discretion. We hold that it was not. 2. Whether we have jurisdiction to review respondent's failure to abate the late filing and payment penalty imposed by section 6651(a). We hold that we do not. Section references are to the Internal Revenue Code as amended. Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. References to petitioner are to Gregorio Mankita. FINDINGS OF FACT Some of th

pro sese. Julie L. Payne, for respondent. MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION VASQUEZ, Judge: Respondent determined the following deficiencies in and additions to petitioners' Federal income tax: Marty M. Morin: Additions to Tax Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a) Sec. 6654 1993 $11,303 $1,934 $299 1994 8,205 2,051 423 1995 5,130 1,283 282 Marilee D. Morin: - 2 - Additions to Tax Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a) Sec. 6654 1993 $3,545 -- -- 1994 11,645 $2,911 $601 1995 1,624 406 87 Unless otherwise ind

-9- We sustain respondent's determination that petitioner is liable for the addition to tax for failure to file a return under section 6651(a) for 1994.

Respondent also determined that petitioner is liable for additions to tax for 1993 of $12,425 for failure to file a timely return under section 6651(a), and $1,980 for failure to pay estimated tax under section 6654(a).

, 1999. Andy Rataiczak, pro se. Stephen J. Neubeck, for respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION GALE, Judge: Respondent made the following determinations with respect to petitioner’s 1993 and 1994 Federal income taxes: Addition to Tax Penalty Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a) Sec. 6662 1993 $16,649 --- $3,330 1994 8,820 $2,205 1,764 - 2 - Unless otherwise noted, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Pract

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION FOLEY, Judge: In a notice dated December 7, 1996, respondent determined a deficiency, a section 6651(a) addition to tax, and a section 6662(a) penalty relating to Joel Hillman's 1991 Federal income tax.

method (cash method) rather than an accrual method, and respondent changed petitioner's method of accounting accordingly. The resulting deficiencies in tax and additions to tax are as follows: Year ended Additions to tax Penalty April 30 Deficiency Sec. 6651(a)(1) Sec. 6662(a) 1990 $107,136 $27,454 $21,427 1991 73,366 22,667 14,673 After concessions by the parties, we decide the following issues: 1. Whether petitioner may deduct unpaid accrued wages of $200,000 and $18,250 for taxable years ende

Fujita) 1995 Federal income tax and an addition to tax under section 6651(a) in the amount of $403.25.

- 3 - addition to tax under section 6651(a) for failure to file a timely return; and (3) whether petitioner is subject to the addition to tax under section 6654 for failure to pay estimated income tax.

1999. Ronald McDougle, pro se. Paul Voelker, for respondent. MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION PARR, Judge: Respondent determined deficiencies in, and additions to, petitioner's Federal income taxes as follows: Additions to tax Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a) Sec. 6654(a) 1993 $16,198 $4,049.50 $678.69 1994 15,782 3,945.50 818.93 - 2 - All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the taxable years in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practic

petitioner failed to report income is in error. 2(...continued) in this case began prior to July 22, 1998. IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, Pub. L. 105-206, 112 Stat. 726. - 6 - Respondent also determined additions to tax for late filing, sec. 6651(a), and for failure to pay estimated tax, sec. 6654. The section 6651 addition applies unless the taxpayer shows that the failure to file was due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect. Petitioner admits that he did not file a 1994 retu

Accordingly, we hold that the addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a) is properly imposed.

The taxpayer bears the burden of proving both (1) that the failure did not result from willful neglect, and (2) that the failure was due to reasonable cause. See United States v. Boyle, 469 U.S. 241, 245 (1985). If the taxpayer does not meet this twin burden, - 13 - the imposition of the addition to tax is mandatory. See Heman v. Com

r respondent. MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION VASQUEZ, Judge: By separate notices of deficiency, respondent determined the following deficiencies in and additions to petitioners' 1995 Federal income tax: Addition to Tax Petitioner Deficiency Sec. 6651(a) Kenneth G. Bohnet $14,899.00 $2,298.50 Kim M. Bohnet 2,419.00 265.75 - 2 - Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court

If a taxpayer exercised ordinary business care and prudence and was nonetheless unable to file the return within the date prescribed by law, then reasonable cause exists. See sec. 301.6651-1(c)(1), Proced. & Admin. Regs. "Willful neglect" means a "conscious, intentional failure or reckless indifference." United States v. Boyle, 469 U.

9. Timie A. Morin, pro se. Julie L. Payne, for respondent. MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION VASQUEZ, Judge: Respondent determined the following deficiencies in and additions to petitioner's Federal income tax: Additions to Tax Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a) Sec. 6654 1994 $7,317 $1,829 $380 1995 6,822 1,706 370 - 2 - All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. The issu

- 2 - Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner's 1994 Federal income tax in the amount of $2,171 and an addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) in the amount of $540.

(3) Whether petitioners are liable for additions to tax under section 6651(a) for failure to timely file their tax returns for the taxable years 1989 through 1994.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION COLVIN, Judge: Respondent determined deficiencies in petitioner's Federal income taxes of $9,161 for 1992, $10,588 for 1993, $9,426 for 1994, and $15,492 for 1995, and additions to tax of $1,095 for 1992, $912 for 1993, $584 for 1994, and $1,362 for 1995 under section 6651(a) for failure to file a timely income tax return.

Section 6651(a) Addition to Tax Respondent determined that petitioner is liable for the section 6651(a)(1) addition to tax for 1993. Section 6651(a)(1) imposes an addition to tax for failure to file timely a return, unless the taxpayer establishes that the failure did not result from “willful neglect” and that the failure was due to “reasonable cau

ioners' vehicle or miscellaneous expenses that petitioner paid on behalf of Cost Less. We hold that they may not. 1 Petitioners concede that, if there are deficiencies in income tax for 1988 and 1991, they are liable for the addition to tax under to sec. 6651(a)(1) for those years. Respondent determined that petitioners are liable for the addition to tax for failure to pay estimated tax under sec. 6654 for 1988 and 1989. We lack jurisdiction to decide this issue if petitioners filed income tax r

. MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION PARR, Judge: By separate notices of deficiency, respondent determined deficiencies in, and additions to, petitioners' Federal income taxes as follows: - 2 - Kenneth O. Butler Addition to tax Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a) 1988 $272 $100 1989 469 113 1990 1,099 186 1991 1,219 250 1992 461 100 1993 1,635 280 1994 941 115 1995 656 115 April C. Butler Addition to tax Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a) 1988 $272 $100 1989 469 113 1990 1,099 186 1991 1,539 330 1992 46

is, for respondent. MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION BEGHE, Judge: Respondent determined the following deficiencies in, and additions to, petitioner's Federal income and self-employment taxes for 1989-94: -2- Additions to Tax Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a) Sec. 6651(f) Sec. 6654 1989 $18,328 -- $13,746 $1,240 1990 57,912 -- 43,434 3,792 1991 66,994 -- 50,246 3,829 1992 48,870 -- 36,653 2,132 1993 9,293 -- 3,206 389 1994 9,603 $2,401 -- 498 All section references are to the Internal Revenue

(3) Whether petitioners are liable for additions to tax under section 6651(a) for failure to timely file their Federal income tax returns for the taxable years 1992, 1993, 1994, and 1995.

Section 6651(a) Addition to Tax Respondent determined that petitioner is liable for the addition to tax under section 6651(a) for failure to file a timely return for the 1994 taxable year. Section 6651(a)(1) provides for an addition to tax for failure to file a timely return. The addition to tax is equal to 5 percent of the amount required to be sh

(2) Whether petitioners are liable for the addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a) for 1990.

In order to establish reasonable cause, a taxpayer must show that despite the existence of ordinary business care and prudence, the taxpayer was unable to file the required tax return within the prescribed time. See United States v. Boyle, 469 U.S. 241, 246 (1985); Crocker v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 899, 913 (1989). "Willful neglect" me

resented no evidence as to the cause for the late filing. In the absence of a satisfactory explanation for the failure to file a timely return, we cannot conclude that the failure was due to a reasonable cause. Consequently, we uphold respondent's determination that petitioner is liable for an addition to tax for the 1995 taxable year pursuant to section 6651(a) (1). To reflect the foregoing, . Decision will be entered under Rule 155.

OPINION OF THE SPECIAL TRIAL JUDGE Powell, Special Trial Judge: Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner’s 1990 Federal income tax in the amount of $6,237 and an addition to tax under section 6651(a) in the amount of $647.

--- MAJORITY --- GERBER, Judge: Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner’s 1995 Federal income tax of $3,893, a penalty pursuant to section 6662(a) of $778.60, and a late-filing addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) of $194.65.

(5) Are petitioners, pursuant to section 6651(a), liable for additions to tax for failing to file excise tax returns?

7 bankruptcy case. On August 22, 1997, respondent issued notices of deficiency to petitioner determining deficiencies in and additions to his Federal income taxes for the taxable years and in the amounts as follows: Additions to Tax Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a) Sec. 6654(a) 1994 $4,162 $775.75 $154.91 1995 10,146 2,254.50 482.15 On September 6, 1997, the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona denied petitioner's appeal of the dismissal of his chapter 13 bankruptcy case. - 4 - On Septem

EMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION PARR, Judge: Respondent determined deficiencies in and additions to petitioners' Federal income taxes for the years and in the amounts as follows: - 2 - Maurice H . S o c h i a Additions to Tax Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a) Sec. 6654(a) 1992 $12,879.15 $3,158.16 $537.83 1993 7,955.00 1,941.63 324.53 1994 8,227.20 1,985.93 410.59 Beatrice M. Sochia Additions to Tax Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a) Sec. 6654(a) 1992 $12,879.15 $3,158.16 $549.77 1993 7,955.00 1,941

Additions to Tax/Accuracy-Related Penalty Respondent determined an addition to tax under section 6651(a), asserting that petitioners failed to file timely a 1992 Federal income tax return, and that they did not show that their failure was due to reasonable cause.

Addition to Tax Under Section 6651(a) Respondent determined an addition to tax under section 6651(a) for delinquent filing of a return.

J. Peterson, for respondent. MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION THORNTON, Judge: Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner's Federal income tax for the year 1994 in the amount of $11,402 and an addition to tax in the amount of $545 under section 6651(a)(1). - 2 - Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code as in effect for the year in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. After concessions by the p

Wilson (Jasmine and Brandy Wilson) as dependents for the years in issue; (4) entitled to file her returns for the years in issue using head of household rates; (5) liable for self-employment tax pursuant to section 1401 for each of the years in issue; (6) liable for the addition to tax under section 6651(a) for failure to timely file her 1993 return; and (7) liable for the accuracy-related penalty provided by section 6662(a) for each of the years in issue.

as a partnership. We hold that petitioner's rental real estate activities were conducted as a partnership, and he is entitled to deduct 50 percent of the expenses incurred. (2) Whether for 1992 petitioner is liable for an addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a). We hold he is. (3) Whether for 1992 petitioner is liable for an addition to tax pursuant to section 6654(a). We hold he is. Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. The stipulated facts and the accompanying exhibits a

o se. Kay Hill, for respondent. MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION LARO, Judge: Petitioner petitioned the Court to redetermine respondent's determination of a $17,287 deficiency in his 1990 Federal income tax and a $4,297 addition thereto under section 6651(a)(1). Following concessions, the only issue left to decide is whether we are authorized to determine any overpayment from 1989 that petitioner may credit to his 1990 Federal income tax liability. We hold we are not. Section references a

Petitioner is liable for the addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) for the taxable year 1995.

Machat (the estate) petitioned the Court to redetermine respondent's determination of deficiencies in the amounts of $26,383 and $277,309 in its 1988 and 1989 Federal income tax, respectively, and additions thereto under section 6651(a) in the respective amounts of $6,596 and $69,327.

ndel, for respondent. MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION JACOBS, Judge: Respondent determined the following deficiencies, additions, and penalties with respect to petitioners' Federal income taxes: Additions to Tax and Penalties Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a) Sec. 6662 1992 $8,517 $100 $1,703 - 2 - 1993 22,226 1,514 4,445 1994 19,178 673 3,836 All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code for the years in issue. All Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedur

1, 1998. Bradley G. Bjelk, pro se. Lawrence H. Ackerman, for respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION GALE, Judge: Respondent determined the following deficiencies in, and additions to, petitioner's Federal income taxes: - 2 - Addition to Tax Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a)1 Sec. 6654(a) 1988 $12,909 $2,802 $705 1989 53,816 13,404 3,623 1990 9,928 2,482 655 1991 58,170 14,543 3,347 1992 10,137 2,534 440 1993 17,712 4,428 742 After concessions by both parties, we must decide the following issues: (1) Whether

(4) Whether the Takaos are liable for an addition to tax for late filing under section 6651(a) for 1988.

N CHIECHI, Judge: Respondent determined the following defi- ciencies in, additions to, and accuracy-related penalty on petitioner's Federal income tax for the years 1992 through 1995: - 2 - Accuracy- Additions to Tax related Penalty Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a)(1)1 Sec. 6654 Sec. 6662(a) 1992 $16,442 $2,822 -- $3,264 1993 17,378 4,170 $728 -- 1994 16,174 4,044 839 -- 1995 46,117 11,529 2,501 -- We must decide whether respondent's determinations for each of the years at issue should be sustained.

Section 6651(a) Respondent determined that petitioners are liable for additions to tax under section 6651(a)(1). Section 6651(a)(1) imposes an addition to tax for failure to file a return timely unless the taxpayer shows that the failure was due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect. See Kotmair v. Commissioner, 86 T.C. 1253, 1263 (1986). A f

Section 6651(a) imposes an addition to tax for failure to file a tax return in a timely manner. Petitioner's 1992 and 1993 tax returns were due on April 15, 1993 and 1994, respectively. Petitioner did not file those returns, however, until October 14, 1994. Petitioner has failed to establish that her tardiness was due to reasonable cause and not du

Therefore, the additions to tax under section 6651(a) must be sustained.

Year Deficiency 6651(f) 6654 1992 $12,153 $7,214 $123 1993 36,489 26,892 1,499 1994 55,518 41,639 2,860 Respondent also determined that petitioner is liable for additions to each year's tax under section 6651(a), to the extent that he is not liable for the additions to tax under section 6651(f).

Addition to Tax Under Section 6651(a) Respondent determined an addition to tax under section 6651(a) for delinquent filing of a return.

pondent. MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION BEGHE, Judge: Respondent determined deficiencies in petitioners' Federal gift taxes and Federal estate tax and additions to tax as follows: - 2 - Estate of Maude G. Furman Additions to Tax Deficiency Sec. 6651(a) Sec. 6653(a) Gift tax-- $75,460 $18,865 $3,773 1981 Estate Tax 115,649 -- -- Estate of Royal G. Furman Additions to Tax Deficiency Sec. 6651(a) Sec. 6653(a) Gift tax-- $75,460 $18,865 $3,773 1981 After concessions regarding the estate tax

MEMORANDUM OPINION GALE, Judge: Respondent determined a deficiency of $14,704 in petitioner’s 1993 Federal income tax, an addition to tax under - 2 - section 6651(a)1 of $1,476.75, and an addition to tax under section 6654(a) of $206.50.

4, 1998. Jimmie R. Valentine, pro se. Eric D. Swenson, for respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION CHIECHI, Judge: Respondent determined the following deficiencies in, and additions to, petitioner's Federal income tax: - 2 - Additions to Tax Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a)(1)1 Sec. 6654 1990 $20,709 $5,177 $1,356 1991 19,711 4,928 1,126 1992 8,188 2,047 357 1993 4,940 1,235 207 1994 4,651 1,163 241 We must decide whether the determinations in the notices of deficiency (notices) that respondent issued to pet

(4) Whether the Takaos are liable for an addition to tax for late filing under section 6651(a) for 1988.

If the failure to file is not due to reasonable cause and it is not fraudulent, section 6651(a) provides for a maximum addition to tax of 25 percent.

urther, Ps are not entitled to loss carryover deductions on account of theft, casualty, or - 2 - trade or business; respondent concedes Ps are entitled to capital loss carryover deductions. 3. Held, further, Ps are liable for additions to tax under sec. 6651(a), I.R.C. 1986, for 1987, and under sec. 6653(a), I.R.C. 1986, for 1986, 1987, and 1988. 4. Held, further, Ps are not liable for additions to tax under sec. 6661, I.R.C. 1986, for 1986, 1987, and 1988. Melvin J. Laney and Carolyn A. Laney,

ences are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. - 2 - In the motion, respondent contends that the Court should sustain additions to tax for the taxable years 1985 and 1986, in the amounts of $7,242 and $5,580, respectively, pursuant to section 6651(a). Background In two notices of deficiency, both dated February 23, 1994, respondent determined that there are additions to tax due from petitioner pursuant to section 6651(a) for the taxable years 1985 and 1986, in the amounts of $7,242

By notice of deficiency dated May 9, 1996, respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner's and his former wife's 4 income tax in the amount of $1,486 and an addition to tax in the amount of $2,688.67, pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) for the tax year 1990.

pondent. MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION FOLEY, Judge: Respondent determined the following deficiencies, additions to tax, and accuracy-related penalties relating to petitioner's Federal income taxes: Additions to Tax Penalty Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a) Sec. 6653(a) Sec. 6662 1988 $25,257 $5,564 $1,263 -- 1989 115,540 28,825 -- $23,108 - 2 - 1990 55,238 13,738 -- 11,048 All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue, and all Rule references are

3(b)(1)(B) 6653(b)(1) 6651(f) 1987 $23,320 $17,490 50% of the --- --- interest due on $23,320 1988 18,554 --- --- $13,916 --- 1989 9,658 --- --- --- $7,244 Respondent asserts in the alternative that petitioner is liable for the additions to tax under sections 6651(a) and 6653(a)(1)(A) and (B) for 1987, sections 6651(a) and 6653(a)(1) for 1988, and section 6651(a) for 1989.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION RUWE, Judge: Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner's 1992 Federal income tax of $72,449 and an addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1)1 in the amount of $2.

her petitioner is entitled to deduct unreimbursed employee business expenses of $8,044 and $5,457 for 1990 and 1991, respectively. We hold he is not. (5) Whether for 1990 petitioner is liable for an addition to tax for failure to file a return under section 6651(a). We hold he is. (6) Whether for 1990 petitioner is 1 Respondent concedes that petitioner did not have unreported income of $81,669 in 1991. 2 Petitioner raises several issues at trial and on brief which we find to be without merit. Ac

e 155. 8 We note that Mr. Constantino was an attorney who was appointed by the superior court to administer the estate. While one court has indicated that a professional executor should be held to a stricter standard than a layperson for purposes of sec. 6651(a), Estate of Cox v. United States, 637 F. Supp. 1112, 1115 (S.D. Fla. 1986), we need not apply such a standard to reach our result herein. Even using the standards applicable to laypersons, we find that petitioner has failed to demonstrate

The flush language of section 6651(a) provides that in the case of a failure to file within 60 days of the date prescribed for the filing of such return, unless it is shown that such failure is due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect, the addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1) shall not be less than the lesser of $100 or 100 percent of the amount requir

petitioner received taxable income in the amounts determined by respondent during the years 1990 through 1993; (2) whether petitioner is liable for self-employment taxes for each of the years 1990 through 1993; (3) whether petitioner is liable under section 6651(a) for the additions to tax for failure to file Federal income tax returns for each of the years 1990 through 1993; and (4) whether petitioner is liable under section 6654 for the additions to tax for failure to make estimated tax paymen

orge Zamora-Quezada petitioned the Court to redetermine respondent's determinations with respect to his 1988 through 1992 taxable years. Respondent determined the following deficiencies and additions thereto: - 2 - Additions to Tax Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a) Sec. 6654 1988 $56,124 $13,966 $3,590 1989 33,575 8,394 2,270 1990 40,531 10,133 2,667 1991 100,185 25,046 2,589 1992 77,245 19,288 3,365 Following petitioner's concession that he is liable for the deficiencies determined by respondent, we

Section 6651(a)(1) imposes an addition to tax of up to 25 percent of the tax required to be shown on the return for failure to timely file Federal income tax returns unless the taxpayer shows that the failure was due to reasonable cause and not 10 willful neglect. United States v. Boyle, 469 U.S. 241, 245 (1985); Baldwin v. Commissio

an extension for filing their 1989 joint return to August 15, 1990, but did not file the return until October 18, 1990. Petitioners di.d not establish reasonable cause for the failure to timely file their 1989 return, and thus they failed to meet their burden of proof. Rule 142(a). We hold that petitioners are liable for the addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1). To reflect the foregoing and the concessions of the parties, Decision will be entered under Rule 155.

effect for the years in issue. All Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and - 2 - Procedure. Respondent determined deficiencies in petitioner's Federal income taxes and additions to tax as follows: Additions to Tax Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a) Sec. 6654(a) 1989 $7,326 $1,832 $496 1990 6,326 1,582 416 1991 5,097 1,274 295 1992 4,501 1,125 193 After concessions by respondent,1 the issues for decision are: (1) Whether petitioner had unreported income for the years 1989, 1990, 1991

determined that if petitioner was not liable for fraud, he was liable for additions to tax and penalties for negligence under section 6653(a)(1) for 1988, penalties for negligence under section 6662 for 1989 and 1990, an addition to tax for substantial understatement under section 6661 for 1988 and additions to tax for failure to timely file under section 6651(a)(1) for 1988 and 1990.

Stenson, for respondent. MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION LARO, Judge: Tommy Jean Hayes petitioned the Court to redetermine respondent's determination of a $50,200 deficiency in her 1992 Federal income tax and a $2,448 addition thereto under section 6651(a)(1). Following concessions, the only remaining issue is whether section 104(a)(2) allows petitioner to exclude - 2 - from her gross income $220,723 of settlement proceeds received from State Farm Insurance Co. (State Farm). We hold it

Section 6651(a)(1) imposes an addition to tax of up to 25 percent of the tax required to be shown on the return for failure to timely file Federal income tax returns unless the taxpayer shows that the failure was due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect. United States v. Boyle, 469 U.S. 241, 245 (1985); Baldwin v. Commissioner,

(3) Is petitioner liable for the addition to tax under section 6651(a) for each of the years 1992 and 1993?

MEMORANDUM OPINION GALE, Judge: Respondent determined a deficiency of $3,169 in petitioner's 1992 Federal income tax and an addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)1 of $782.25.

Respondent also determined additions to tax pursuant to section 6651(a) in the respective amounts of $199.75 and $197.75.

- 29 - Delinquency--Section 6651(a) Section 6651(a)(1) provides for an addition to tax of 5 percent per month for each month or part of a month for which a return is late, the aggregate not to exceed 25 percent.

dent. MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION GALE, Judge: Respondent determined the following deficiencies in, and additions to, petitioners' Federal income taxes. - 2 - Petitioner James B. Murtaugh: Addition to Tax Addition to Tax Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a) Sec. 6654 1987 $24,520 $4,748 $361 1988 20,939 3,124 738 1990 20,349 3,925 998 1991 6,737 1,460 331 1992 4,554 1,105 192 Petitioner Joan E. Murtaugh: Addition to Tax Addition to Tax Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a) Sec. 6654 1987 $2,075 $100

(2) Whether petitioner is liable for a section 6651(a) addition to tax for failure to file a 1990 Federal income tax return.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION GALE, Judge: Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner's 1990 Federal income taxes in the amount of $15,211.20 and additions to tax under section 6651(a)1 and 1Unless otherwise noted, section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.

Petitioner is liable for the additions to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) for each of the years in issue as determined in the notice of deficiency.

r. Jeremy McPherson, for respondent. MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION PARR, Judge: Respondent determined a deficiency in, and additions to, petitioner's Federal income tax for the taxable year 1988 as follows: Additions to Tax Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a)(1) Sec. 6654 1988 $98,917 $24,729.25 $6,326.15 - 2 - After concessions by the parties,1 the only issue for decision is: Whether pursuant to section 1034(a), petitioner may defer recognition of the gain from the sale of his principal resi

hetic services, listing O and one of the "trusts", T, as partners. P and O were the only people who performed services on behalf of NAA. Held: P is taxed on any income transferred to the "trust". Held, further, P is liable for additions to tax under sec. 6651(a), I.R.C. Held, further, P is liable for additions to tax under sec. 6654(a), I.R.C. Jeffrey A. Dickstein, for petitioner. Andrew H. Lee, for respondent. - 2 - MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION LARO, Judge: James C. Estrada petitione

While petitioner does not address respondent's determination with respect to the addition to tax, section 6651(a)(1) provides for an addition to tax for failure to timely file a return "unless it is shown that such failure is due to reasonable cause and not due to wilful neglect".

- 3 - additions to tax for 1987 and 1988, and the parties agreed that petitioner was liable for a 1989 deficiency of $2,831 and an addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) for 1989.

r, for respondent. MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION CHIECHI, Judge: Respondent determined the following with respect to petitioners' respective Federal income tax for 1991: - 2 - Addition to Tax Accuracy-Related Penalty Petitioner Deficiency Sec. 6651(a)(1)1 Sec. 6662(a) Stephen A. Raymond $13,181 -- -- Sandra C. Raymond 3,964 $198 $793 The issue remaining for decision is whether certain payments made during 1991 by petitioner Stephen A. Raymond (Mr. Raymond) to petitioner Sandra C. Raymo

6651(a); United States v. Boyle, 469 U.S. 241, 245 (1985). - 6 - A failure to file timely is due to reasonable cause for purposes of section 6651 if the taxpayer exercised ordinary business care and prudence and nevertheless was unable to file the return within the prescribed time. Sec. 301.6651-1(c)(1), Proced. & Admin. Regs.; see McMahan v.

Section 6651(a)(1) Addition to Tax Respondent determined that petitioners are liable for the section 6651(a) addition to tax for 1990 and 1991.

Whether petitioner, pursuant to section 6651(a), is liable for an addition to tax for failing to file his 1979 Federal income tax return in a timely manner.

. in part T.C. Memo. 1991- 140; Liddy v. Commissioner, 808 F.2d 312, 315 (4th Cir. 1986), affg. T.C. Memo. 1985-107. Petitioner has failed to prove facts to contradict respondent’s determination of an addition to tax in the amount of $5,916.25 under section 6651(a). Therefore, we sustain respondent's determination of an addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1), subject only to recalculation of the deficiency. D. Addition to Tax for Failure To Pay Estimated Tax Section 6654(a) provides for an add

294, 314 (1992). We find that Faye's reliance on her attorney's advice provided her with reasonable cause for her failure to file income tax returns for the years in issue. As a result, we hold that Faye is not liable for the additions to tax under section 6651(a). Respondent also determined that Faye is liable for an addition to tax for failure to pay estimated tax under section 6654(a) for each of the years in issue. Unless one of the statutory exemptions applies, imposition of this addition

6651(a); Rule 142(a); United States v. Boyle, 469 U.S. 241, 245-246 (1985); United States v. Nordbrock, 38 F.3d 440 (9th Cir. 1994). "Reasonable cause" requires a taxpayer to demonstrate that he exercised ordinary business care and prudence and was nevertheless unable to file a return within the prescribed time. United States v. Boyle, supra a

6651(a); Rule 142(a); United States v. Boyle, 469 U.S. 241, 245 (1985); see United States v. Nordbrock, 38 F.3d 440 (9th Cir. 1994). Petitioner has failed to prove that his failure to file was due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect. The addition to tax under section 6654 is mandatory unless petitioner proves that he has met one

- 2 - Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner's 1992 Federal income tax in the amount of $2,119.30, and an addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a) in the amount of $529.83.

The taxpayer bears the burden of proving both (1) that the failure did not result from willful neglect, and (2) that the failure was due to reasonable cause. United States v. Boyle, 469 U.S. 241, 245 (1985). If the taxpayer does not meet this twin burden, the imposition of the addition to tax is mandatory. Heman v. Commissioner, 32

6651(a); Rule 142(a); United States v. Boyle, 469 U.S. 241, 245 (1985); Catalano v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 8 (1983), affd without published opinion sub nom. Knoll v. Commissioner, 735 F.2d 1370 (9th Cir. 1984). A failure to file timely is due to reasonable cause if the taxpayer exercised ordinary business care and prudence, and, nevertheless, w

tion 6653(b)(1) for 1988 and the addition to tax for fraudulent failure to file under section 6651(f) for 1989. We hold they are not. 4. Whether petitioners are liable for additions to tax for failing to timely file their 1988 and 1989 returns under section 6651(a). We hold they are. 5. Whether petitioners are liable for additions to tax for failing to pay estimated taxes under section 6654 for 1988 and 1989. We hold they are. - 4 - 6. Whether Mrs. Wilkinson is an "innocent spouse" under section

MEMORANDUM OPINION JACOBS, Judge: Respondent determined a $14,733 deficiency in petitioner's Federal income tax for 1991, an addition to tax for failure to timely file a 1991 Federal income tax return pursuant to section 6651(a)(1), and an addition to tax for failure to pay estimated taxes pursuant to section 6654.

Section 6651(a) provides an addition to tax for failure to timely file an income tax return by the prescribed due date unless the taxpayer can establish that such failure was due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect. Although reasonable - 38 - cause is not defined in the Code, the regulations state: “If the taxpayer exercised ordinary busin

Section 6651(a) provides an addition to tax for failure to timely file an income tax return by the prescribed due date unless the taxpayer can establish that such failure was due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect. Although reasonable - 38 - cause is not defined in the Code, the regulations state: “If the taxpayer exercised ordinary busin

6651(a); Rule 142(a); United States v. Boyle, 469 U.S. 241, 245 (1985); Catalano v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 8 (1983). A failure to file timely is due to reasonable cause if the taxpayer exercised ordinary business care and prudence, and, nevertheless, was unable to file the return within the prescribed time. Sec. 301.6651-1(c)(1), Proced. & Admi

elating to her tutoring and counseling activity; (2) whether petitioner is entitled to miscellaneous deductions in the amount of $14,534 claimed on Schedule A, Itemized Deductions; (3) whether petitioner is liable for the addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a) as determined by respondent; and (4) whether petitioner is liable for the penalty under section 6662(a), due to her negligence or because she substantially understated her Federal income tax within the meaning of section 6662(d).

We sustain respondent's imposition of the addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1) for 1985 and 1986.

-2- under section 6651(a) in the amount of $674 and under section 6654(a) in the amount of $91.

OPINION Section 6651(a)(1) Respondent determined that petitioners are liable for the section 6651(a) addition to tax for 1987, 1988, and 1989.

6651(a); Rule 142(a); United States v. Boyle, 469 U.S. 241, 245 (1985); Catalano v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 8 (1983). A failure to file timely is due to reasonable cause if the taxpayer exercised ordinary business care and prudence, and, nevertheless, was unable to file the return within the prescribed time. Sec. 301.6651-1(c)(1), Proced. & Admi

ase was heard pursuant to the provisions of section 7443A(b)(3) and Rules 180, 181, and - 2 - 182.1 Respondent determined deficiencies in petitioner's Federal income tax and additions to tax as follows: ______Additions to Tax_______ Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a) Sec. 6654 1989 $2,119 $530 $144 1990 2,456 614 160 1991 2,584 100 --- The issues for decision are: (1) Whether petitioner is liable for Federal income taxes on wages received during the years in issue; (2) whether section 6501 bars the as

6651(a); Rule 142(a); - 17 - United States v. Boyle, 469 U.S. 241, 245 (1985); Catalano v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 8 (1983). A failure to file timely is due to reasonable cause if the taxpayer exercised ordinary business care and prudence, and, nevertheless, was unable to file the return within the prescribed time. Sec. 301.6651-1(c)(1), Proced

as heard pursuant to the provisions of section 7443A(b)(3) and Rules 180, 181, and 182.1 Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner's 1989 1 Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the taxable year in - 2 - Federal income tax in the amount of $1,249 and an addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a) in the amount of $312.25.

To the contrary, respondent contends that petitioners are liable for the additions to tax pursuant to section 6653(a)(1) and (2), section 6661(a), and section 6651(a), and the increased interest pursuant to section 6621(c).

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION COLVIN, Judge: Respondent determined that, for 1988, petitioner is liable for a deficiency in Federal income tax of $63,600 and additions to tax of $10,779 for failure to timely file under section 6651(a) and $3,281 for negligence under section 6653(a)(1).

6651(a); Rule 142(a); United States v. Boyle, 469 U.S. 241, 245 (1985); Catalano v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 8 (1983). A failure to file timely is due to reasonable cause if the taxpayer exercised ordinary business care and prudence and, nevertheless, was unable to file the return within the prescribed time. Sec. 301.6651-1(c)(1), Proced. & Admin

Whether Petitioners Are Liable for Additions to Tax for Failure To Timely File Under Section 6651(a) Section 6651(a)(1) provides for an addition to tax up to 25 percent for failure to timely file Federal income tax returns unless the taxpayer shows that such failure was due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect.

Respondent also determined the following: (1) an addition to tax of $3,076 under section 6651(a)(1); (2) an accuracy-related penalty of $11,944 under section 6662 due to a substantial understatement of income tax, and (3) an addition to tax of $4,182 under section 6654(a) as a result of the failure of petitioner to pay estimated income tax.

Petitioner untimely filed his 1987 Federal income tax return on April 4, 1989, without extension. Petitioner failed to present evidence showing reasonable cause. Petitioner is subject to this addition to tax. To reflect the foregoing, Decisions will be entered under Rule 155.

o, whether and - 4 - how an allocation should be made between dealer and nondealer assets in order to determine whether and to what extent the gain on sale is entitled to installment treatment; (6) whether Howard Berger and Alice Berger are liable for additional self-employment tax for 1988 and 1989; and (7) whether Alice Berger is liable for the section 6651(a) addition to tax or section 6662 accuracy- related penalty for 1989.

o, whether and - 4 - how an allocation should be made between dealer and nondealer assets in order to determine whether and to what extent the gain on sale is entitled to installment treatment; (6) whether Howard Berger and Alice Berger are liable for additional self-employment tax for 1988 and 1989; and (7) whether Alice Berger is liable for the section 6651(a) addition to tax or section 6662 accuracy- related penalty for 1989.

income. 1. Held: P's gross income includes a portion of the distribution based on the ratio between the taxable items and the nontaxable items making up Trust C's distributable net income. 2. Held, further, P is liable for the addition to tax under sec. 6651(a), I.R.C. 3. Held, further, P is liable for the addition to tax under sec. 6654(a), I.R.C. - 2 - Steven M. Kwartin, Martin J. Nash, Michael B. Axman, and William J. Palmer, for petitioner. Stephen R. Doroghazi and Kenneth A. Hochman, for r

ar. On brief, petitioner concedes that for 1986 he has unreported income of $1,187 attributable to that State and local income tax refund. Although respondent argues for the first time on brief that petitioner is liable for the addition to tax under sec. 6651(a) because he filed his 1986 Federal income tax return (return) on or after Dec. 1, 1988, on brief, petitioner does not dispute that he filed his 1986 return at that time, and he concedes that he is liable for that addition to tax. See Rule

Whether petitioner, pursuant to section 6651(a), is liable for additions to tax for failure to file his 1990 and 1991 Federal income tax returns in a timely manner.

n so as to be subject to the first-tier excise tax under section 4975(a). We hold he did not. Based on our holding, we also hold that petitioner is not subject to the - 3 - second-tier excise tax under section 4975(b) and the additions to tax under section 6651(a)(1). Unless otherwise indicated, section references are to the Internal Revenue Code applicable to the years in issue. Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Background This case has been submitted fully s

Whether Petitioners Are Liable for Additions to Tax for Failure To Timely File Under Section 6651(a) Section 6651(a)(1) provides for an addition to tax up to 25 percent for failure to timely file Federal income tax returns unless the taxpayer shows that such failure was due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect.

awson, for respondent. MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION PARR, Judge: Respondent determined deficiencies in and additions to petitioner's Federal income taxes for taxable years 1989, 1990, and 1991, as follows: Additions to Tax Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a) Sec. 6654(a) 1989 $58,895 $13,646 $3,658 1990 12,258 2,041 508 - 2 - 1991 13,391 3,192 728 After concessions, the issues for decision are:1 (1) Whether petitioner's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction should be granted. We hold th

ge: Respondent determined deficiencies in petitioners’ Federal income tax and additions to tax as follows: 1 These cases were consolidated for purposes of trial, briefing, and opinion. - 2 - MTS International, Inc. Additions to Tax Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a) Sec. 6653(a)(1)(A)1 Sec. 6661 1987 $217,716 $54,429 $10,885 $54,429 1 Respondent determined an addition to tax under sec. 6653(a)(1)(B) of 50 percent of the interest due on $217,716 for 1987. Robert C. Hughes III Additions to Tax Year Defi

Additions to Tax Under Section 6651(a)(1) Respondent determined an addition to tax under section 6651(a) for each year in issue, asserting that petitioner failed to file Federal income tax returns.

Addition To Tax for Failure To Timely File Respondent determined an addition to tax under section 6651(a) for petitioners' failure to timely file their 1990 Federal income tax return.

deficiencies in petitioner's Federal income tax of $2,681 for 1988, $5,338 for 1989, and $4,071 for 1990, and additions to tax of $134 for 1988 for negligence under section 6653(a) and $770 for 1989 and $574 for 1990 for failure to timely file under section 6651(a). - 2 - After concessions,1 the sole issue for decision is whether petitioner operated her farm with an actual and honest profit objective in 1988, 1989, and 1990. We hold that she did not. Section references are to the Internal Revenu

The flush language of section 6651(a) provides that in case of failure to file within 60 days of the due date of the return, the addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1) will not be less than the lesser of $100 or 100 percent of the amount required to be shown as tax on the return.

Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner's Federal income tax for the year 1991 in the amount of $4,377, and an addition to tax under section 6651(a) in the amount of $339.

OPINION OF THE SPECIAL TRIAL JUDGE PANUTHOS, Chief Special Trial Judge: Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner's 1991 Federal income tax in the amount of $8,241, an addition to tax pursuant to section 6651(a) in the amount of $894.25, and an addition to tax pursuant to section 6654 in the amount of $175.85.2 The issues for decision are: (1) Whether petitioner timely filed his 1991 Federal income tax return;3 (2) whether petitioner can elect married filing joint return status pursuant t

for the addition to tax for negligence under section 6653(a)3 for all the years in issue. We hold that he is liable. (7) Whether petitioner is liable for the addition to tax for failure to timely file his Federal tax returns for 1986 and 1987 under section 6651(a). We hold that he is liable. (8) Whether petitioner is liable for the 2 Respondent has made concessions as to Schedule C expenses, schedule A expenses, and Schedule E expenses to the extent petitioner was able to substantiate the deduct

After a concessions by the parties,2 the issues for decision are: (1) Whether the "wages" received by petitioner are taxable; (2) whether petitioner is liable for the addition to tax for failure to file a return pursuant to section 6651(a) in the amount of $1,257; and (3) whether petitioner is liable for the addition to tax for underpayment of estimated tax pursuant to section 6654 in the amount of $241.

(3) Are petitioners liable for an addition to tax under section 6651(a) for failure to timely file an income tax return for 1987?

- 3 - for an addition to tax under section 6651(a)2 for failure to file a timely Federal income tax return for 1985; and (6) whether petitioners are subject to an addition to tax under section 6661 as a result of a substantial understatement of their income tax for 1985.

(3) Whether petitioners are liable for the addition to tax under section 6651(a)1 for failure to timely file their Federal income tax return.

Respondent determined that petitioner was liable for an addition to tax under section 6651(a) for failure to file a return.

,853 878 Nevan Y. King Additions to Tax Year Deficiency Sec. 6651 Sec. 6654 1990 $28,908 $7,227 $- 0 - 1991 35,964 8,991 2,050 By Amended Answer, respondent asserts the following increased deficiencies: Doyle A. King Additions to Tax Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a) Sec. 6654 1990 $28,291 $6,218 $1,490 1 9 9 1 2 8 , 7 7 2 7,193 1,656 Nevan Y. King Additions to Tax Year Deficiecncy Sec. 6651(a) Sec. 6654 1 9 9 0 $ 4 0 , 3 1 7 $9,224 $1,578 1991 41,871 10,460 2,406 After concessions, the issues for de

,853 878 Nevan Y. King Additions to Tax Year Deficiency Sec. 6651 Sec. 6654 1990 $28,908 $7,227 $- 0 - 1991 35,964 8,991 2,050 By Amended Answer, respondent asserts the following increased deficiencies: Doyle A. King Additions to Tax Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a) Sec. 6654 1990 $28,291 $6,218 $1,490 1 9 9 1 2 8 , 7 7 2 7,193 1,656 Nevan Y. King Additions to Tax Year Deficiecncy Sec. 6651(a) Sec. 6654 1 9 9 0 $ 4 0 , 3 1 7 $9,224 $1,578 1991 41,871 10,460 2,406 After concessions, the issues for de

is liable for the addition to tax for substantial understatement under section 6661 for 1983 and 1984; - 3 - and (6) in the alternative to the fraud additions for 1984, whether petitioner is also liable for an addition to tax for late filing under section 6651(a). We hold that: (1) For 1983, petitioner is collaterally estopped from denying that he committed fraud and is liable for the section 6653(b)(1) fraud addition because of his guilty plea to criminal tax fraud, but that petitioner is not

e record to suggest that petitioners' failure to file was due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect. We conclude, therefore, that respondent is entitled to summary judgment with respect to the addition to tax for 1990 for failure to file under section 6651(a). Rapp v. Commissioner, 774 F.2d 932, 936 (9th Cir. 1985), affg. an Order of this Court. Section 6662(a) and (b) imposes a penalty equal to 20 percent of the portion of the underpayment of taxes attributable to negligence or disregard

merican Express Form 1099–K 615,280 Grubhub Form 1099–K 21,361 Clinco’s admission Estimated cash receipts (10% 228,929 of gross income) Amount of Deficiency $2,289,592 The resulting notice of deficiency for the 2015 tax year had a short menu of adjustments—underreported gross receipts, unsubstantiated depreciation on the two Pasadena properties, a section 6651(a)(1)2 addition to tax, and a section 6662(a) penalty.

See § 6651(a)(1) and (2). On May 14, 2019, shortly after receiving the Notice of Deficiency, petitioner and her husband filed a delinquent joint return for 2016. This return reported (among other things) itemized deductions of $42,967, a tax liability of $62,840, and an overpayment of $89,683. The return re- quested that $58,683 of the overpayment be r

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION CARLUZZO, Chief Special Trial Judge: In a Notice of Deficiency (Notice) dated November 8, 2021, respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner’s 2018 federal income tax along with section 6651(a)1 additions to tax.

tioner’s federal income tax returns for 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008 were also subject to a civil examination by the IRS.2 On May 17, 2018, the IRS issued a Notice of Deficiency to petitioner and his spouse, determining income tax deficiencies of $612,942 and $232,390 for the 2006 and 2007 tax years, respectively, as well as an addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1) of $152,978 for the 2006 tax year.

The IRS assessed these amounts along with the applicable additions to tax under section 6651(a)(1) and (2).

§ 6651(a)(1) and (2).3 II. The Collection Due Process Proceeding On February 14, 2022, the IRS issued to petitioner the Notice of Intent to Levy, informing her of her right to contest the proposed levy action and request a CDP hearing. It indicated that March 16, 2022, was the last date to request a CDP hearing with the IRS Independent Office of Ap

filed Forms 941, Employer’s Quarterly Federal Tax Return, with balances due for payroll tax liabilities for the periods ending December 31, 2020, and March 31, June 30, September 30, and December 31, 2022.2 Petitioner incurred additions to tax under section 6651(a)(2) for failure to timely pay tax owed by the original due date for all three tax periods still at issue and under section 6656 for failure to make deposit of taxes for tax periods ending June 30 and September 30, 2022.

If the Commissioner satisfies the burden of production for additions to tax under section 6651(a), the taxpayer bears the burden of proving the additions to tax are inappropriate.

at 252, the Supreme Court held: “The failure to make a timely filing of a tax return is not excused by the taxpayer’s reliance on an agent, and such reliance is not ‘reasonable cause’ for a late filing under § 6651(a)(1).” But the Supreme Court also noted: “Courts have frequently held that ‘reasonable cause’ is established when a taxpayer shows that he reasonably relied on the advice of an accountant or attorney that it was unnecessary to file a return, even when such advice turned out to have b

On September 26, 2016, respondent assessed (1) the reported income tax liability, (2) an addition to tax for failure to timely pay, see § 6651(a)(2), (3) an addition to tax for failure to pay estimated tax, see § 6654, and (4) interest, see § 6601.

For 2012 and 2013 the parties settled with the Walshes liable for reduced tax deficiencies and section 6651(a) additions to tax but no section 6662(a) accuracy-related penalties.

See §§ 6651(a)(1) and (2), 6654. Petitioner timely petitioned this Court for redetermination. Petitioner concedes that he was born in New York, that he was a resident of Houston, Texas, during 2019, that he is a “U.S. national,” and that he holds a U.S. passport. And he concedes that he has a U.S. Social Security card, while asserting that he has convey

See §§ 6651(a)(1), 6662(a).1 The defi- ciencies are attributable to unreported gambling and other income, dis- allowed itemized deductions, disallowed business expense deductions, and an additional tax for an early distribution from a retirement plan. See § 72(t). 1 Unless otherwise indicated, statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code, Title

n in income on her 2018 Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return. Respondent issued a Notice of Deficiency (notice) to petitioner, determining a deficiency with respect to the unreported distribution and an addition to tax for late filing under section 6651(a). The notice also determined a ten-percent additional tax on the distribution amount because petitioner withdrew the funds before reaching age 59½. Petitioner has since conceded that the distribution was taxable and should have been inc

Following a series of examinations, respondent determined that Robert is liable for the following deficiencies, additions to tax under section 6651(a),2 and accuracy-related penalties under section 6662(a) and (b)(2): Additions to Tax/Penalties Year Deficiency § 6651(a)(1) § 6651(a)(2) § 6662(a) 2008 $2,297,759 — — $459,551.80 2009 850,037 — — 170,007.40 2010 379,653 $68,337.54 $94,913.25 — In an Amendment to Answer filed in the case at Docket No.

o tax and interest. See Dykstra, T.C. Memo. 2017-156, at *17. 6 [*6] Generally, the abatement of failure-to-file and failure-to-pay additions to tax requires a showing that the failures were “due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect.” I.R.C. § 6651(a) (flush language). To prove reasonable cause for failure to file, a taxpayer must show that he “exercised ordinary business care and prudence and was nevertheless unable to file the return within the prescribed time.” Treas. Reg. § 301

See § 6651(a)(1) and (2) (requiring a showing that the taxpayer’s failure to file a tax return or to pay tax was “due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect”). Mr. Hartmann did not submit any evidence to support his claim that the statutory penalties were unreasonable and therefore failed to raise a proper challenge to his underlying liabil

This passing reference does not clearly state that the IRS was assessing the section 6038(b)(1) penalty within the meaning of section 6201(a).

at 8 (holding that additions to tax under section 6651(a)(1) and (2) are not punitive).

9 The Commissioner determined additions to tax under section 6651(a)(1) for 2015 and 2016, but later conceded that Maggard and Chang aren’t liable for these additions.

Respondent determined a deficiency of $5,931 in petitioners’ 2015 federal income tax, a section 6662(a) accuracy-related penalty of $1,186.20, and a section 6651(a) addition to tax for failure to timely file of $1,295.25.

Return of Partnership Income, for each of 2006, 2007, and 2008 did not commence the period of limitation on the assessment of section 1446 withholding tax for the year, and (7) YA Global is liable for additions to tax under section 6651(a)(1) and (2) for its failure to file Forms 8804 and pay section 1446 withholding tax.

12 [*12] section 6651(a) because the addition to tax was attributable to the deficiency).

The IRS as- sessed the $11,028 tax liability shown on the delinquent return along with additions to tax under section 6651(a) (for failure to timely file and pay) and section 6654 (for failure to pay estimated tax), plus accrued interest.

In his deficiency proceeding for the 2014 tax year, this Court issued a bench opinion sustaining a deficiency of $17,493 and a section 6651(a)(1) addition to tax of $1,574.

tax on undistributed earnings in his RRSP accounts for the years in issue because he failed to make the election to defer taxation under Article XVIII(7).4 The determinations are as follows: Additions to Tax / Penalties Year Deficiency § 6651(a)(1) § 6662(a) 2006 $6,170,062 $1,542,516 $1,234,012 2007 7,003,016 1,750,754 1,400,603 2008 5,701,781 1,425,445 1,140,356 2009 3,295,133 823,783 659,027 2010 7,450,688 1,862,672 1,490,138 2011 3,075,585 768,896 615,117 While residing in Canada, Mr.

Respondent assessed the tax shown, a section 6651(a)(2) addition to tax, and statutory interest.

The IRS assessed the tax as shown on the delinquent return along with additions to tax under section 6651(a) (failure to timely file and pay) and section 6654 (failure to pay estimated tax), plus accrued interest.

r is (1) entitled to deduct asserted expenses relating to three alleged businesses; (2) entitled to deduct asserted expenses related to two real estate properties; and (3) liable for an addition to tax for failure to timely file his tax return under section 6651(a). The Court holds that petitioner is entitled to deduct some of his asserted expenses, as discussed below, and petitioner is liable for an addition to tax for failure to timely file. Background Some of the facts have been stipulated an

Additionally, the IRS determined nearly $1 million in additions to tax under section 6651(a)(1) and (2) and section 6654.

The IRS for those years timely assessed unpaid tax, additions to tax under section 6651(a)(1) and (2), and interest.

020, letter scheduling the CDP hearing, SO1 requested a signed 2018 tax return and made clear that he was doing so because IRS “records show[ed] that [it] ha[d] not been filed.” He repeatedly told 6 Petitioners contend that their 2009–2010 liabilities include additions to tax for failure to pay tax appearing in a notice and demand for payment, see § 6651(a)(3), and that the SOs failed to verify supervisory approval for those amounts.

The IRS subsequently assessed the reported tax as well as an addition to tax for failure to timely pay tax under section 6651(a)(2), an addition to tax for failure to pay estimated tax under section 6654, and statutory interest.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION GOEKE, Judge: Respondent determined deficiencies against petitioner for 2013 and 2014 of $61,832 and $90,408, respectively, and a section 6662(a) accuracy-related penalty and a section 6651(a)(1) addition to tax for failure to timely file a return for each year.1 After concessions, the sole issue for decision is whether petitioner is entitled to a net operating loss (NOL) deduction for 2013.

must prove fraud by “clear and 23 [*23] convincing evidence.” Rule 142(b); see I.R.C. § 7454(a); Castillo v. Commissioner, 84 T.C. 405, 408 (1985). The Commissioner determined penalties under section 6662 and section 6663 and additions to tax under section 6651(a). The Commissioner must produce evidence that those penalties are appropriate. Such a showing would shift the burden to Mr. Clemons. However, with respect to section 6663, the Commissioner must prove fraud by clear and convincing eviden

S OF FACT AND OPINION WELLS, Judge: Respondent determined deficiencies in petitioners’ federal income tax and additions to tax and penalties for 2004–07 (years in issue) as follows: Served 11/30/22 2 [*2] Additions to Tax/Penalties Year Deficiency § 6651(a)(1) § 66631 2004 $39,865 $9,216 $29,899 2005 51,739 12,070 38,804 2006 60,979 14,448 45,734 2007 74,019 — 55,514 Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code, Title 26 U.S.C., in effect at all relevant

§ 727(b) provides that certain debts are nondischargeable.

The IRS for those years as- sessed deficiencies, additions to tax under section 6651(a)(1) and (2), and interest.

On February 10, 2016, pursuant to substitute-for-return procedures, respondent made assessments of employment taxes, section 6651(a) additions to tax, and section 6656 penalties for the 2013 quarters as a result of petitioner’s untimely filings, payments, and deposits.

Section 6651(a) Addition to Tax The Code imposes an addition to tax when taxpayers do not file their return on time. Sec. 6651(a)(1). Taxpayers can avoid this with proof that their failure was due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect. United States v. Boyle, 469 U.S. 241, 245 (1985). The Commissioner has met his burden here by providing the

6651(a), (b)(1), (f); Clayton v. Commissioner, 102 T.C. 632, 653 (1994); Porter v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2015-122, at *44. The Commissioner has the burden of proving these elements by clear and convincing evidence for each year for which fraud is alleged. Sec. 7454(a); Rule 142(b); Clayton v. Commissioner, 102 T.C. at 646; Porter v. Commiss

- 3 - [*3] The IRS assessed for each year the reported liability, an addition to tax for failure to timely pay under section 6651(a)(2), an addition to tax for failure to pay estimated tax under section 6654, and statutory interest.

l Revenue Code in effect at all relevant times, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. We round all monetary amounts to the nearest dollar. 2The Commissioner has conceded a failure-to-file addition to tax under sec. 6651(a)(1) of $5,309 for 2013. The Huffs have conceded that the IRS followed the procedural requirements of sec. 6751(b) with respect to managerial approval of the accuracy-related penalties. - 3 - [*3] graduating from high school in 1969. For f

- 3 - [*3] The IRS selected the estate’s return for examination and determined a $1,020,129 deficiency in estate tax, plus a $255,032 section 6651(a)(1) addition to tax for untimely filing and a $204,026 section 6662(a) accuracy-related penalty.

6662(b)(1), 6662(b)(1), (2), & (3) (2), & (h) John Davis No form 6662(b)(1), (2), & (3) 18 The Welches contested the section 6651(a) penalty for years 2003 and 2004 in their petition.

6662(b)(1), 6662(b)(1), (2), & (3) (2), & (h) John Davis No form 6662(b)(1), (2), & (3) 18 The Welches contested the section 6651(a) penalty for years 2003 and 2004 in their petition.

6662(b)(1), 6662(b)(1), (2), & (3) (2), & (h) John Davis No form 6662(b)(1), (2), & (3) 18 The Welches contested the section 6651(a) penalty for years 2003 and 2004 in their petition.

6662(b)(1), 6662(b)(1), (2), & (3) (2), & (h) John Davis No form 6662(b)(1), (2), & (3) 18 The Welches contested the section 6651(a) penalty for years 2003 and 2004 in their petition.

Penalties The Commissioner also wants a section 6651(a) addition to tax and a section 6662(a) accuracy-related penalty against Mr.

Petitioner has conceded all other issues, including her liability for late-filing additions to tax under section 6651(a)(1) on any deficiencies redetermined for 2013 and 2014.¹ Finding that petitioner has not established that she sustained a theft loss in 2015 (or in any other year at issue), we resolve this question in respondent's favor.

Revenue Agent Bonnie McElhattan (RA McElhattan), assigned to the Jacksonville technical services office, prepared ajoint notice ofdeficiency determining that petitioners were liable for an income tax deficiency of$148,708 for the taxable year 2005, an addition to tax of$37,177 under section 6651(a)(1) for failure to timely file a tax return, and an accuracy-relatedpenalty of$29,742 under section 6662(a).

The IRS accordingly assessed for each year the reported tax, an addition to tax under section 6651(a)(2) for failure to timely pay, an addition to tax under section 6654 for failure to pay estimated tax, and statutory interest.

The Notice ofLevy and Petitioner's Request for a Collection Due Process Hearing On February 3, 2017, respondent sent petitioner the notice oflevy which stated that petitioner owed $9,095 in tax, $446 in additional interest, and $1,225 for a section 6651(a)(2) addition to tax for failure to timely pay tax for 2014.

Petitioner does not con- - 10 - [*10] test the additions to tax under section 6651(a)(1) or (2) or 6654, so they will apply to the extent a deficiency remains for 2014.

(e)(1)(A) (requiring proofthat a deficiency was "attributable in whole or in part to any unreasonable error or delay - 9 - [*9] by an [IRS] officer or employee * * * (acting in his official capacity) in performing a ministerial or managerial act"); sec. 6651(a)(1) and (2) (requiring a showing that the taxpayer's failure was "due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect"). Petitioner submitted no evidence to the SO on these points, and he therefore failed to mount a proper challenge to

As ofthe latter date the IRS had assessed interest on the deficiencies and additions to tax under section 6651(a)(2), so that petitioner's outstanding tax liability for the five years totaled $71,519.

The IRS thereafter assessed for each year the reported tax, an addition to tax for failure to timely pay under section 6651(a)(2), an addition to tax for failure to pay estimated tax under section 6654, and statutory interest.

To prove reasonable cause for failure to pay, "the taxpayermust show that he exercised ordinary business care and prudence in providing for payment of his tax liability and nevertheless was either unable to pay the tax or would suffer undue hardship ifhe paid the tax on the due date." Hardin v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2012-162, 10

As a result ofthis adjustment, respondent determined a balance of$2,315, comprising unpaid tax, an addition to tax under section 6651(a), and interest (collectively, unpaid balance).

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION MARVEL, Judge: Respondent determined an income tax deficiency of $453,564, an addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1) of$23,354.25, and an SERVED Aug 15 2019 - 2 - [*2] accuracy-relatedpenalty under section 6662(a) of$90,712.80 with respect to petitioner's Federal income tax for tax year 2013.¹ After concessions, the remaining issues are: (1) whether petitioner is entitled to deduct interest on purported loans paid to alleged creditors; (2) whe

Respondent made a default assessment on September 30, 2013, of$1,380 ofincome tax, an addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1) of$236, and interest of$88 for a total amount due of$1,704.

And we are left to look at the gains Andersen reported on Form 4797, Sales ofBusiness Property, from the sales ofthe motel and RV park, and ofthe ranch; deductions that he claimed on his Schedules C, E, and A; and a late-filing penalty under section 6651(a)(1).2 The parties are farthest apart--about $1.1 million apart--in their calculations ofthe two bases in dispute.

.1.6.14 (Nov. 19, 1980) (Policy Statement 5-71), 5.16.1.2.9 (Aug. 25, 2014). By checking the "I Cannot Pay Balance" box on the 5(...continued) existence or amount ofthe underlying tax liabilities ifreviewed de novo. 6Undertaking de novo review ofthe sec. 6651(a) and 6654 additions to tax that make up a portion ofthe underlying tax liability for each year would likewise have no impact on the outcome. The only challenge petitioner raised with respect to the additions to tax was her claim that resp

On January 5, 2015, respondent assessed the deficiency and an addition to tax for failure to pay under section 6651(a)(2) (plus interest).

Section 6651(a) Additions to Tax Section 6651(a)(1) authorizes the imposition ofan addition to tax for failure to file a return timely unless it is shown that such failure is due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect. See United States v. Boyle, 469 U.S. 241, 245 (1985). Whether a taxpayerhas "reasonable cause" within the meaning ofsec

The Brookses' 2003 and 2006 tax liabilities On May 6, 2004, the Brookses filed their return for their 2003 tax year and did not pay the tax owed or the additions to tax under section 6651(a), which at that time totaled less than $1,000.

For each year at issue, respondent promptly assessed the total tax shown in petitioner's return, as well as applicable interest and additions to tax under section 6651(a)(2) for failure to timely pay and section 6654 for failure to pay estimated tax (collectively, unpaid liabilities).

(6) deter- mined that petitioners had failed to report retirement distributions for 2008 and 2009; (7) determined additional tax for early retirement withdrawals in 2008 and 2009; (8) determined that petitioners had failed to report interest income for 2008; (9) determined a section 6662 accuracy-relatedpenalty for each year; and (10) de- termined section 6651(a)(1) late-filing additions to tax for 2008 and 2009.

The IRS also determined SERVED Apr 04 2018 - 2 - [*2] for 2012 a late-filing addition to tax of$314 under section 6651(a)(1).¹ After concessions,2 we must decide whether petitioners are entitled to deductions claimed on Schedule A, Itemized Deductions, for unreimbursed employee busi- ness expenses in excess ofthe amounts the IRS allowed.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION LAUBER, Judge: With respect to petitioner's Federal income tax for 2012, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS or respondent) determined a deficiency of $4,985 and a late-filing addition to tax of$142 under section 6651(a)(1).¹ After ¹All statutory references are to the Intemal Revenue Code in effect during (continued...) SERVED Jul 30 2018 - 2 - [*2] concessions, the issue remaining for decision is whether petitioner is entitled to a noncash charitable contri

und that the record lacked any evidence that Mr. Wheeler had filed a return for the year in question or that the Commissioner had prepared a substitute return under section 6020(b)--a prerequisite for the failure- to-timely-pay addition to tax under section 6651(a)(2). E at 208, 210. The record similarly lacked any evidence that Mr. Wheeler had a required annual payment for the preceding tax year--a prerequisite for the addition to tax for underpaying estimated tax. R at 212. Because section 749

The IRS processed this return and assessed the tax shown as due, plus a late-filing addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1) and applicable interest.

On May 7, 2012, the IRS assessed the self-reported tax, additions to tax under section 6651(a), and applicable interest.

On the basis ofthat determination, the Commissioner further determined that YA Global was liable for the tax under -5- section 1446, failure to file and failure to pay additions to tax under section 6651(a), and failure to make estimated tax payments additions to tax under sections 6655 and 1446(f)(2).

Petitioner and intervenor owed a liability on their 2011 tax and were assessed an addition to tax under section 6651(a) for failure to pay timely.

1; (3) whether SoBe claimed any business expense deductions between tax years 2003 and 2011 for costs that it should have capitalized; (4) whether petitioner had a sufficient basis in his interest in SoBe to deduct his distributive share oflosses; and (5) whether petitioner is liable for an addition to tax for failure to file a timely return under section 6651(a) for 2011.

011, and they did not address the late-filing addition to tax at trial or on brief. They offered no evidence or argument that their failure to file timely was due to reasonable cause. We sustain respondent's detenmination ofthe addition to tax under section 6651(a). - 23 - [*23] We have considered all arguments made, and, to the extent not mentioned, we conclude that they are moot, irrelevant, or without merit. To reflect the foregoing, Decision will be entered under Rule 155.

und that the record lacked any evidence that Mr. Wheeler had filed a return for the year in question or that the Commissioner had prepared a substitute return under section 6020(b)--a prerequisite for the failure- to-timely-pay addition to tax under section 6651(a)(2). E at 208, 210. The record similarly lacked any evidence that Mr. Wheeler had a required annual payment for the preceding tax year--a prerequisite for the addition to tax for underpaying estimated tax. R at 212. Because section 749

As ofJanuary 30, 2015, petitioner had balances due of$941 and $6,512 for 2009 and 2010, respectively.2 He did not pay these liabilities upon notice and demand for payment. On January 30, 2015, in an attempt to collect these unpaid liabilities, the IRS sent petitioner a Letter 11, Notice ofIntent to Levy (levy notice), for 2009 and

,511 ofcanceled debt should be included in income. See secs. 61(a)(12), 108(d)(3). Petitioners untimely filed their 2011 joint Federal income tax return. Respondent bears, pursuant to section 7491(c), and has met his burden of production relating to section 6651(a). Petitioners' failure to timely file their return was the result ofwillful neglect, not reasonable cause. Accordingly, petitioners are liable for the section 6651(a)(1) addition to tax relating to 2011. Respondent determined that peti

In this case respondent has met his burden ofproduction as it relates to the addition to tax determined under section 6651(a) for 2011 and the accuracy-related penalties determined under section 6662(a) for 2010 and 2011.

under which the burden of proofwould shift to respondent. See generally sec. 7491(a). Respondent has the burden ofproduction under section 7491(c) for the additions to tax. Respondent presented evidence,justifying the additions to tax assessed under section 6651(a). Petitioner has presented neither evidence nor argument that her late filing and late payments were due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect. The additions to tax will be sustained. By agreement with respondent's counsel

2015, respondent determined the following deficiencies, additions to tax, and penalties:¹ ¹ Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal (continued...) SERVED Jul 03 2018 - 2 - [*2] Addition to tax Penalty Year Deficiency sec. 6651(a)(1) sec. 6662(a) 2011 $84,179 -0- $16,836 2012 46,951 $11,738 9,390 After concessions,2 the issues for decision are: (1) whether petitioners' business constituted a partnership for tax purposes; (2) whetherpetitioners had unreported gross

und that the record lacked any evidence that Mr. Wheeler had filed a return for the year in question or that the Commissioner had prepared a substitute return under section 6020(b)--a prerequisite for the failure- to-timely-pay addition to tax under section 6651(a)(2). E at 208, 210. The record similarly lacked any evidence that Mr. Wheeler had a required annual payment for the preceding tax year--a prerequisite for the addition to tax for underpaying estimated tax. R at 212. Because section 749

und that the record lacked any evidence that Mr. Wheeler had filed a return for the year in question or that the Commissioner had prepared a substitute return under section 6020(b)--a prerequisite for the failure- to-timely-pay addition to tax under section 6651(a)(2). E at 208, 210. The record similarly lacked any evidence that Mr. Wheeler had a required annual payment for the preceding tax year--a prerequisite for the addition to tax for underpaying estimated tax. R at 212. Because section 749

Castaneda) income from Centro; (4) whether petitioners are liable for the section 6663 fraud penalty or, in the alternative, the section 6662 accuracy- related penalty; and (5) whether petitioners are liable for the section 6651(a) addition to tax.

6651(a)(2); sec. 301.6651-1(a)(2), Proced. & Admin. Regs. Ifthere was a difference between the amount the Melaskys paid and the amount they owed, it was slight indeed. In their cross-motion for summaryjudgment the Melaskys asserted that their $18,000 check would've fully paid their liability--an assertion that the Commissioner didn't dispute.

Respondent assessed the tax as reported plus additions to tax under section 6651(a)(1) and (2) and section 6654.

On September 22, 2009, petitioner's counsel executed a "Stipulation ofAgreed Issues" which settled the unagreed law practice adjustments and an additional issue, namely, whether a section 6651(a) addition to tax would apply to the unagreed law practice adjustments.

In the notice ofdeficiency for 2012 respondent determined a deficiency of $2,422 plus additions to tax for failure to file and failure to pay under section 6651(a)(1) and (2), respectively.

und that the record lacked any evidence that Mr. Wheeler had filed a return for the year in question or that the Commissioner had prepared a substitute return under section 6020(b)--a prerequisite for the failure- to-timely-pay addition to tax under section 6651(a)(2). E at 208, 210. The record similarly lacked any evidence that Mr. Wheeler had a required annual payment for the preceding tax year--a prerequisite for the addition to tax for underpaying estimated tax. R at 212. Because section 749

Finally, respondent determined late filing additions to tax of$12,664.83 and $3,284.43 under section 6651(a)(1) for petitioner's 2011 and 2013 taxable years, respectively.

ts, respondent determined that petitioner was not entitled to the claimed refund of$53 but instead had an outstanding income tax liability of$179. Respondent also determined that petitioner was liable for a failure-to-paytimely addition to tax under section 6651(a)(2). On September 28, 2015, respondent issued petitioner a Notice ofIntent to Levy and Notice ofYour Right to a Hearing. On October 9, 2015, petitioner submitted a Form 12153, Request for a Collection Due Process or Equivalent Hearing.

The IRS in Boyle had determined an addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1) for late filing ofan individual income tax return.

Thus the additions to tax determined for 2012 and 2014 under section 6651(a) apply, absent a showing by petitioners ofreasonable cause.

On December 17, 2012, the IRS assessed $11,854 against petitioner for 2010, representing his unpaid tax liability for that year plus additions to tax under section 6651(a) (for failure to file and timely pay) and sec- tion 6654(a) (for failure to pay estimated tax), along with interest.

1, the IRS assessed additions to tax under sections 6651(a)(2) and 6654(a) with respect to petitioner's taxable year 2006 as well as interest as provided by law. On October 10, 2011, the IRS assessed an additional - 12 - [*12] addition to tax under section 6651(a)(2). On November 25, 2013, the IRS assessed additional interest as provided by law. In addition, at various times after 2010, the IRS credited against petitioner's assessed 2006 total tax certain overpayments totaling $15,694 that petit

It determined the amounts ofhis liabilities; prepared a substitute for return (SFR) for each period and type oftax; and detennined additions to tax under section 6651(a)(1) and (2) (for failure to timely file and pay, respectively) and a penalty under section 6656 (for failure to deposit taxes).

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION GOEKE, Judge: Respondent determined an income tax deficiency and additions to tax under section 6651(a)(1) and (2)¹ for the Capital Fire Insurance ¹All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year at issue.

Regarding the Income Tax accounts, you now owe only penalties under IRC§ 6651(a)(2) and interest due under IRC §6601(a) & (b), IRC§6621(a)(2) [sic] and IRC§6622 [sic].

On April 14, 2017, the Court entered a stipulated decision in this case which provided that petitioner was entitled to reliefunder section 6015(b) in that he is -6- not liable for additional income tax, an addition to tax under section 6651(a)(2), or an accuracy-relatedpenalty under section 6662 for the taxable year 2010.

Thus the additions to tax determined for 2012 and 2014 under section 6651(a) apply, absent a showing by petitioners ofreasonable cause.

6651(a)(1); United States v. Boyle, 469 U.S. 241, 245 (1985). In their peti- tion, petitioners did not assign error to respondent's determination that they are liable for late-filing additions to tax. See Rule 34(b)(4) (adjustments to which error is not assigned are deemed conceded); Swain v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 358, 358 (2002). In any even

etitioners' motion; (B) procedures for the removal ofTax Court Judges for cause do not violate separation ofpowers principles; and (C) ¹Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioners' income tax for 2008 of $1,722,175 and an addition to tax under sec. 6651(a)(1) and an accuracy-related penalty under sec. 6662(a) of$82,337 and $344,435, respectively. 2Unless otherwise indicated, section references are to the Internal Revenue Code, as amended. Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules ofPracti

Section 6651(a) Addition to Tax: Failure To Timely File Section 6651(a)(1) imposes upon taxpayers an addition to tax for failure to file a timely return. The addition to tax will not apply ifthe taxpayer shows its failure was due to reasonable cause, not willful neglect. R A taxpayer demonstrates reasonable cause when it shows that, despite exercis

On February 21, 2011, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) assessed the tax shown on petitioner's Form 1040, along with section 6651(a)(1) and (2) additions to tax.

The IRS examined those returns and determined tax deficiencies, additions to tax un- der section 6651(a)(2), and accuracy-related penalties under section 6662(a).

The parties agree that she is not liable for additions to tax under section 6651(a)(1) or (2) but that she is liable for a $247 addition to tax under section 6654.

Respondent also determined an addition to tax for failure to timely file under section 6651(a)(1)¹ of$696,206.50 for 2011.

nging them here. See Thompson, 140 T.C. at 178; sec. 301.6330-1(f)(2), Q&A-F3, Proced. & Admin. Regs. Petitioners' underlying tax liabilities also include the late-filing and late- payment additions to tax that the IRS determined and assessed under section 6651(a). Toward the end ofthe CDP proceeding petitioners sought abatement of these additions to tax, and the SO informed them ofthe information they would need to submit in order for her to consider their abatement request. The SO gave petitio

On September 11, 2013, respondent issued petitioner a notice ofdeficiency for taxable year 2010 determining the same deficiency, accuracy-related penalty under section 6662, and addition to tax for failure to timely file under section 6651(a)(1) as in thejeopardy assessment.

Section 6651(a) Additions to Tax A. Failure To Timely File Addition to Tax Section 6651(a)(1) imposes an addition to tax for failure to file a return on the date prescribed (including extensions) unless the taxpayer can establish that the failure is due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect.¹° Section 7491(c) provides that the Commissi

§ 6651(a)(1); and That there are no penalties due from petitioners for the taxable years 2009 and 2010, under the provisions ofI.R.C. § 6662(a). The following agreements between petitioners and respondent appeared below the signature ofthe Judge who had presided over petitioners' deficiency case: It is hereby stipulated that the Court may enter the

Rupert) determining a deficiency of$15,526 in his Federal income tax for 2009 and additions to tax under section 6651(a)(1) and (2).

Therefore, petitioner is liable for the addition to tax under section 6651(a) for tax year 2011.

Reynoso owes: (cid:16)042a fraudulent-failure-to-file penalty under section 6651(f);7 (cid:16)042a failure-to-timely-paypenalty under section 6651(a); and (cid:16)042a penalty for failing to pay estimated tax under section 6654.

Late Filing Section 6651(a)(1) imposes an addition to tax for failure to timely file a return unless the taxpayer can establish reasonable cause.

s filedjoint Federal income tax returns for 2008, 2010, and 2011 but did not pay the tax shown as due. The IRS properly assessed the tax shown as due on those returns, plus applicable additions to tax and interest, as follows: Year Tax Sec. 6654(a) Sec. 6651(a)(2) Interest 2008 $58,664 $1,151 $2,347 $1,399 2010 86,881 399 3,075 1,764 2011 34,927 588 319 113 Total 180,472 2,138 5,741 3,276 In an effort to collect these outstanding liabilities, the IRS sent petitioners, in mid-2013, final notices

56, 73-74 (1986) (failing to argue against liability for addition to tax under section 6651(a) at trial or on briefis a deemed concession).

Late Filing Section 6651(a)(1) imposes an addition to tax for failure to timely file a return unless the taxpayer can establish reasonable cause.

Petitioner also raises the underlying tax liabilities for 2010 and 2011 in that he contends that the late filing addition to tax under section 6651(a) should not apply because his returns were timely filed.

6651(a), (b)(1), (f); Clayton v. Commissioner, 102 T.C. 632, 653 (1994); Porter v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. - 30 - [*30] 2015-122, at *44. Respondent has the burden ofproving these elements by clear and convincing evidence for each year for which fraud is alleged. Sec. 7454(a); Rule 142(b); see Zell v. Commissioner, 763 F.2d 1139, 1142 (10th

Chaganti has not shown his tardy filing was due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect, he is liable for the section 6651(a) additions to tax for 2006 and 2007.

29, 2003 201,864.00 201,864.00 69,821.00 Total 10,975,059.03 11,244,084.42 4,053,709.13 On September 6, 2007, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) assessed the following amounts against SCC for the tax year ended May 31, 2001: (1) corporate income tax of$41,566,515; (2) an addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1) of$2,078,276; (3) an accuracy-relatedpenalty under section 6662 of - 5 - [*5] $8,313,303; and (4) interest of$26,953,309.60.

cord. Respondent disallowed all ofthe claimed Schedule C Rambor expense deductions for lack ofsubstantiation as follows: 6The record does not explain why the revenue agent, who examined petitioners' 2010 tax return, and respondent failed to assert a sec. 6651(a) late- filing penalty in this case. - 5 - Expense Amount Business use ofhome $8,647 Repairs and maintenance 3,997 Legal and professional services 8,761 Insurance (other than health insurance) 2,431 Other 47,554 Depreciation and section 17

With respect to their Federal gift tax liabilities for 2007, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS or respondent) determined against each SERVED APR - 6 2015 - 2 - [*2] petitioner a tax deficiency of$268,950 and a late-filing addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1) of$67,238.1 During 2007 each petitioner made to a family trust a gift with an asserted value of$1,631,000.

9481-10, petitioners and respondent litigated petitioners' entitlement to the above-claimed business bad debt deductions for 2006 and 2007 and petitioners' liability for a late-filing addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1) for 2007.

Seventy Sherman St., LLC v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2014-124, at *35-*36 (the Commissioner bears the burden ofproofwith respect to a penalty first raised in his amendmentto answer).¹° ¹°Where the Commissioner first asserts an addition to tax under sec. 6651(a) in an answer or amendment thereto, we have described his burden ofproofas requiring him to establish the absence of"exculpatory factors." See Rader v. Commissioner, 143 T.C. ___, __ (slip op. at 22) (Oct. 29, 2014); see also Arnold v. Com

6651(a)(2) 2009 $368,308 $73,661 $121,684 2010 307,662 61,532 83,039 2011 335,754 71,150 92,299 On June 17, 2013, petitioner filed a petition in this Court challenging respondent's above determinations. On April 28, 2014, respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition for lack ofjurisdiction, alleging petitioner lacked the capacity to sue a

On September 6, 2007, the IRS assessed the following amounts against SCC for the tax year ended May 31, 2001: (1) corporate income tax of$41,566,515; (2) an addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1) of$2,078,276; (3) an accuracy-relatedpenalty under section 6662 of $8,313,303; and (4) interest of$26,953,309.60.

- 3 - [*3] respondent's determination on the remaining issues and entered an order and decision reflecting the deficiency amount and the addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1).2 Following assessment, the IRS began collection efforts.

titioners that it could not accept the proposed OIC but indicated a willingness to receive additional information. In response, petitioners 4The Letter 1058 also stated that petitioners were liable for an additionto tax for late payment pursuant to sec. 6651(a)(3). - 7 - [*7] sent the COIC Unit a letter dated January 9, 2013, and financial documentation. The letter explained the family's medical problems, the foreclosure proceedings, and the third section 401(k) plan account loan. The mortgage o

6663 1995 $199,088 $149,316.00 -- 1996 188,065 141,048.75 -- 1997 86,214 64,660.50 -- 1998 180,137 135,102.75 -- 1999 323,534 242,650.50 -- 2000 507,598 380,698.50 -- 2001 358,272 268,704.00 -- 2002 322,984 -- $242,238 As alternatives to the section 6651(f) and section 6663 penalties, respondent determined additions to tax under section 6651(a) and a penalty under section 6662, respectively.

On September 6, 2007, the IRS assessed the following amounts against SCC for the tax year ended May 31, 2001: (1) corporate income tax of$41,566,515; (2) an addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1) of$2,078,276; (3) an accuracy-relatedpenalty under section 6662 of $8,313,303; and (4) interest of$26,953,309.60.

81-1382 (9th Cir. 1988); Hartman v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 542, 546 (1975). The existence or absence ofa substitute for return under section 6020 is thus irrelevant to the validity ofthe statutory notice. It is relevant only to additions to tax under section 6651(a)(2). See Wheeler v. Commissioner, 127 T.C. 200, 209-210 (2006), aff'd, 521 F.3d 1289 (10th Cir. 2008). To the extent that petitioner's arguments depend on the claimed invalidity ofsubstitutes for return prepared under section 6020(b),

81-1382 (9th Cir. 1988); Hartman v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 542, 546 (1975). The existence or absence ofa substitute for return under section 6020 is thus irrelevant to the validity ofthe statutory notice. It is relevant only to additions to tax under section 6651(a)(2). See Wheeler v. Commissioner, 127 T.C. 200, 209-210 (2006), aff'd, 521 F.3d 1289 (10th Cir. 2008). To the extent that petitioner's arguments depend on the claimed invalidity ofsubstitutes for return prepared under section 6020(b),

On September 6, 2007, the IRS assessed the following amounts against SCC for the tax year ended May 31, 2001: (1) corporate income tax of$41,566,515; (2) an addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1) of$2,078,276; (3) an accuracy-relatedpenalty under section 6662 of $8,313,303; and (4) interest of$26,953,309.60.

He later assessed a section 6651(a)(2) addition to tax for failure to timely pay.

Al Bakari agreed to the adjustments and signed the Form 870, Waiver of Restrictions on Assessment and Collection ofDeficiency in Tax and Acceptance ofOverassessment, consenting to the assessment oftax and additions to tax under section 6651(a)(1) and (2).

With respect to their Federal gift tax liabilities for 2007, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS or respondent) determined against each SERVED APR - 6 2015 - 2 - [*2] petitioner a tax deficiency of$268,950 and a late-filing addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1) of$67,238.1 During 2007 each petitioner made to a family trust a gift with an asserted value of$1,631,000.

The burden ofshowing reasonable cause under section 6651(a) remains on the taxpayer.

6651(a), (b)(1), (f); Clayton v. Commissioner, 102 T.C. 632, 653 (1994); Mohamed v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2013-255, at *19-*20, *24-*25 (citing Christianson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-99, rev'd on other grounds, 1 Fed. Appx. 704 (9th Cir. 2001)). The Commissioner must prove these elements by clear and convincing evidence. Sec. 7454(a)

The IRS subsequently assessed the tax and interest due, as well as additions to tax for failure to pay timely under section 6651(a)(2) and failure to pay estimated tax under section 6654(a), for a total assessment of$12,014.

As with the section 6651(a) additions, respondent bears the burden ofproduction as to the penalty.2° ¹8See sec.

As with the section 6651(a) additions to tax, respondent bears the burden ofproduction as to the penalty.4° The penalty will not apply to any portion ofan underpayment for which a taxpayerestablishes 38S_ee sec.

The IRS summarily assessed the amount oftax shown on the return, plus statutory interest and a penalty pursuantto section 6651(a)(2) for failure to timely pay tax.

1.183- 2(b)(1), Income Tax Regs.; see also Golanty, 72 T.C.

Respondent determined an addition to tax under section 6651(a) for failure to file timely a Federal income tax return for 2007 of$94 and for 2008 of$530.70.

Swiggarthad reported as due on his return.2 2Ofthe $2,205, $2,142 is attributable solely to the change in filing status; the remainder consists ofa section 6651(a)(2) addition to tax and interest.

- 10 - [*10] to, among other reasons, negligence or disregard ofrules or regulations 22 As with section 6651(a), the Commissioner bears.the burden ofproduction as to the penalty.²³ The penalty will not apply to any portion ofthe underpayment for which a taxpayer establishes that he or she had reasonable cause and acted in good faith.24 As defined in the-Code, "'negligence' includes any failure to make a reasonable attempt to comply with the p

untary obedience to the law. These statements certainly were never intended to suggest that the internal revenue laws were self-destructive. Yet, this is precisely what petitioner's argument 67McKeownv. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1985-74. 68See, e.e., sec. 6651(a)(1) (imposing a civil addition to tax for failure to file); sec. 7203 (imposing a criminal fine or imprisonment for willful failure to file). - 57 - [*57] comes down to, for ifhe were correct, Congress has supplied every taxpayer with a f

For 2009 the IRS sent petitioners a notice ofdeficiency determining a deficiency of$36,958, a section 6662(a) penalty of$7,392, and a section 6651(a)(1) addition to tax of$9,240.

The additions to tax under section 6651(a)(1) and (2) and the penalty under section 6656(a) apply unless the taxpayerproves that its failure to timely file, failure to timely pay, or failure to make deposits was "due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect".

ce of deficiencythat determined an $883,800 corporate income tax deficiency and a section 6662 accuracy-relatedpenalty of$176,760 for the 2004 tax year.2 On June 16, 2011, respondent sent Chester Bross a notice ofdeficiency that determined a $1,015,293 gift tax deficiency, a $406,117 section 6662 gross valuation misstatementpenalty, and a $253,823 section 6651(a)(1) addition to tax for the 2004 tax year.

0-142, sec. 9(a), 121 Stat. at 1807. Although no regulatory interpretation ofthe penalty has been adopted by the Department ofthe Treasury, another court has analogized the exculpatory provision ofsection 6699(a) to the reasonable cause provision ofsection 6651(a)(1). Kipperman v. IRS (In re 800Ideas.com, Inc.), 496 B.R. 165, 172-175 9 Petitioner acknowledges that this date is one month late even ifit had received an extension oftime to file. Therefore, according to petitioner, the late- filing

Respondent also determined section 6651(f) additions to tax for fraudulent failure to file of$107,772, $1,333,699, $56,777, $164,882, and $100,385 for tax years 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004, respectively (or, in the alternative, that additions to tax under section 6651(a) applied for those years).

ce of deficiencythat determined an $883,800 corporate income tax deficiency and a section 6662 accuracy-relatedpenalty of$176,760 for the 2004 tax year.2 On June 16, 2011, respondent sent Chester Bross a notice ofdeficiency that determined a $1,015,293 gift tax deficiency, a $406,117 section 6662 gross valuation misstatementpenalty, and a $253,823 section 6651(a)(1) addition to tax for the 2004 tax year.

The failure to make a timely filing ofa tax return is not excused by the taxpayer's reliance on an agent, and such reliance is not 'reasonable cause' for a late filing under section 6651(a)(1)." The taxpayer's request for penalty abatement is denied.

ons 6651(a)(1) and (2) and 6654(a). - 4 - [*4] The Aredes timely filed their Form 1040 for 2010 in April 2011 but did not fully pay the reported liability. The following month, respondent assessed the total tax reported and an addition to tax under section 6651(a)(2). II. Collection Actions On July 2, 2012, respondent mailed a Notice ofIntent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing to the Aredes. The levy notice informed the Aredes that respondent intended to collect their 2006, 2007, 2008

6651(a)(1) 2005 $89,899 $67,425 -0- 2006 75,074 56,306 3,754 - 4 - [*4] After concessions by petitioners and respondent,4 the only issue for decision is whether petitioners Mr. Carreon, Bancard Solutions, and Merchants, Inc. are liable for the civil fraud penalty pursuantto section 6663(a) for the taxable years at issue. 40n December 11, 2012

$81,841.63 $4,341.69 2006 66,370 14,397.50 41,752.75 2,679.23 2007 48,459 12,114.75 35,132.78 2,205.50 2008 17,703 * 12,834.68 568.89 2009 44,490 * 34,803.55 1,174.83 2010 10,677 * 6,820.08 199.68 *Amount to be determined at a later date pursuantto sec. 6651(a)(2). In the petition, petitioner indicated that he disagreed with the determinations in the notice. In support ofthat disagreement, petitioner alleged that for each of the years at issue "[t]he Determination used 'married filing separately

6651(a)(1) 2005 $89,899 $67,425 -0- 2006 75,074 56,306 3,754 - 4 - [*4] After concessions by petitioners and respondent,4 the only issue for decision is whether petitioners Mr. Carreon, Bancard Solutions, and Merchants, Inc. are liable for the civil fraud penalty pursuantto section 6663(a) for the taxable years at issue. 40n December 11, 2012

ing the NOL carryover and the transaction fees for 2000. - 13 - The IRS determined deficiencies, additions to tax, and penalties with respectto the Bedrosians' Federal income tax for 1999 and 2000 as follows: Addition to tax Penalty Year Deficiency sec. 6651(a)(1) sec. 6662(a) 1999 $3,498,882 $134,781 $1,392,553 2000 12,137 -0- 4,855 III. Litigation History On July 5, 2005, the Bedrosians timely filed a petition disputing the adjustments in the 2005 notice. Respondent answered. On August 30, 200

ce of deficiencythat determined an $883,800 corporate income tax deficiency and a section 6662 accuracy-relatedpenalty of$176,760 for the 2004 tax year.2 On June 16, 2011, respondent sent Chester Bross a notice ofdeficiency that determined a $1,015,293 gift tax deficiency, a $406,117 section 6662 gross valuation misstatementpenalty, and a $253,823 section 6651(a)(1) addition to tax for the 2004 tax year.

ce of deficiencythat determined an $883,800 corporate income tax deficiency and a section 6662 accuracy-relatedpenalty of$176,760 for the 2004 tax year.2 On June 16, 2011, respondent sent Chester Bross a notice ofdeficiency that determined a $1,015,293 gift tax deficiency, a $406,117 section 6662 gross valuation misstatementpenalty, and a $253,823 section 6651(a)(1) addition to tax for the 2004 tax year.

In a notice ofdeficiency dated June 22, 2011 (notice), respondent determined deficiencies of$2,156 and $10,278 in petitioners' 2007 and 2008 Federal income tax, respectively, and imposed a $987.75 section 6651(a)(1) addition to tax for 2008.

_9_ addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1), and an accuracy-relatedpenalty under section 6662(a).

d received income from accounts that were held in his relatives' names. On February 25, 2010, the parties entered into a decision documentwhich set forth the following deficiencies in income tax and additions to tax: Additions to tax Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a)(1) Sec. 6654 1998 $59,423 $201,919 -0- 1999 3,962,411 1,209,681 -0- 2000 3,922,839 984,710 -0- 2001 1,475,791 369,939 $629 4(...continued) limitation on assessment were validly extended. - 5 - [*5] The decision document further stipulate

6213(a), the IRS assessed the income tax determined in the notice ofdeficiency, a late-payment addition to tax under section 6651(a)(2), and related statutory interest and sent a notice and demand for payment to the Harrisons.

existence or amount oftheir underlying liability for 2011, i.e., the liability thatthey themselves reported on their own return,5 is without merit. 5 Petitioners never mounted any challenge to eitherthe addition to tax for failure to timely pay, see sec. 6651(a)(2), or statutory interest, see sec. 6601(a), independent oftheir challenge to the underlyingtax itself. - 17 - [*17] IV. Remaining Matters Petitioners have not at any time raised spousal defenses. See secs. 6015, 6330(c)(2)(A)(i). Thus,

1.183- 2(b)(1), Income Tax Regs.; see also Golanty, 72 T.C.

In a notice ofdeficiency dated June 7, 2011 (notice), respondent: (1) determined a $6,500 deficiency in petitioner's 2009 Federal income tax; (2) imposed a $135 section 6651(a)(1) addition to tax; and (3) imposed a $1,300 section 6662(a) accuracy-relatedpenalty.

As with section 6651(a), respondentbears the burden ofproduction as to the penalty.51 The penalty will not apply to any portion ofthe underpayment for which a taxpayer establishes that he or she had reasonable cause and acted in good faith.52 As defined in the Code, "'negligence' includes any failure to make a reasonable attemptto complywiththe provisions

By notice dated March 10, 2014, respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner's income tax for 2010 of$13,160 as well as a penalty for failure to timely file under section 6651(a)(1) of$1,226.93 and a penalty for failure to - 3 - [*3] timely pay under section 6551(a)(2) of$899.75.¹ See sec.

As with section 6651(a), respondentbears the burden ofproduction as to the penalty.51 The penalty will not apply to any portion ofthe underpayment for which a taxpayer establishes that he or she had reasonable cause and acted in good faith.52 As defined in the Code, "'negligence' includes any failure to make a reasonable attemptto complywiththe provisions

6651(a)(1) 2005 $89,899 $67,425 -0- 2006 75,074 56,306 3,754 - 4 - [*4] After concessions by petitioners and respondent,4 the only issue for decision is whether petitioners Mr. Carreon, Bancard Solutions, and Merchants, Inc. are liable for the civil fraud penalty pursuantto section 6663(a) for the taxable years at issue. 40n December 11, 2012

, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Petitioners have conceded their liability for a $1,064.85 addition to tax under sec. 6651(a)(1) for delinquently filing their 2004 return. Respondent has conceded that petitioners’ donation of the easements complies with the requirements for deduction under sec. 170. Respondent disputes only petitioners’ valuation of the easemen

tments disallowing the NOL carryover and the transaction fees for 2000. The IRS determined deficiencies, additions to tax, and penalties with respect to the Bedrosians’ Federal income tax for 1999 and 2000 as follows: Year Deficiency Addition to tax sec. 6651(a)(1) Penalty sec. 6662(a) $3,498,882 $134,781 $1,392,553 M CD CD CD 12,137 -0-4,855 tO O O O III. Litigation History On July 5, 2005, the Bedrosians timely filed a petition disputing the adjustments in the 2005 notice. Respondent answered.

1, 8 (2004).) The only liability issue left here is how much ofan addition to tax Trainor owes under section 6651(a)(1) for failure to timely file his 2000 tax return.

at 462 (holding section 6651(a) is applicable to the failure to file a Form 5330).

Section 6651(a) Additions to Tax Section 6651(a)(1) provides for an addition to tax in the event a taxpayer fails to file a timely return (determined with regard to any extension oftime for filing) unless the taxpayer shows that such failure is due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect. The amount ofthe addition is equal to 5% ofthe am

- 5 - [*5] section 6651(a)(1) of$127, and imposing on petitioner a penalty under section 6673(a) of$2,000.

We are left to determine whether for those years petitioner fraudulently underpaid his income tax and is liable for the section 6663(a) fraud penalty or, alternatively, for 2007, whether he is liable for a delinquency addition to tax under section 6651(a) and (f) for fraudulent failure to file a return.1 II.

241, 245 (1985) ("Congress' purpose in the prescribed civil penalty [section 6651(a)(1)] was to ensure timely filing oftax returns to the end that tax liability will be ascertained and paid promptly.").

ring, on October 26, 2009, advising petitioner that - 3 - [*3) respondent intended to collect the following unpaid liability for tax year 2008 and thatpetitioner could schedule a hearing with the Appeals Office: Assessment Amount Income tax $28,590 Sec. 6651(a)(2) penalty 143 Sec. 6654 penalty 480 Interest 38 Abatement (3,475) 2010 overpayment (22) Total 25,754 Petitioner timely filed a Form 12153, Request for a Collection Due Process or Equivalent Hearing, on November 23, 2009, requesting an in

chael T. Shelton and Lauren N. Hood, for respondent. OPINION BUCH, Judge: Respondent determined deficiencies, additions to tax, and penalties with respect to petitioners' joint Federal income tax as follows: Addition to tax Penalty Year Deficiency sec. 6651(a)(1) sec. 6662(a) 2006 $3,540 $100 $708.00 2007 3,901 100 780.20 2008 8,127 -0- 1,625.40 Because the parties have resolved all other issues by stipulation, the only issue for the Court to decide is the amount ofthe penalty under section 6662

In addition, respondent determined that petitioner and her husband were liable for an $8,911,858 deficiency, a $2,044,590 section 6651(a)(1) addition to tax, and a $1,782,372 section 6662(a) accuracy-relatedpenalty.

ceipts on Schedules C, Profit or Loss From Business, for 2006 and 2007, (2) whetherpetitioner is entitled to Schedule C business expense deductions for 2006 and 2007 in excess ofthe amounts respondent allowed, (3) whetherpetitioner is liable for the section 6651(a) failure to timely file addition to tax for 2007, and (4) whetherpetitioner is liable for section 6662(a) accuracy-relatedpenalties for 2006 and 2007.

Section 6651(a) Addition to Tax Section 6651(a)(1) imposes an addition to tax for failure to timely file a tax return. The Commissioner has met his burden ofproduction on this one because Azimzadeh stipulated that he didn't file his 2006 tax return, which was due October 15, 2007, until April 28, 2008. And Azimzadeh hasn't argued that he had - 35

The notice also abated the section 6651(a) additions to tax that had been assessed pursuant to section 6665(b) for each taxable year at issue.

The section 6651(a)(1) additions to tax . .tionto summaryjudgment exhibits rife 4Petitioners attach to their opposi the art ofthe revenue agent. As 1 t at o p tit roper beh a ns and h tagentrefused to cons d stments t o any cred b factual basis orjustification. - 5 - d in the FSW case reflected an agreement [* ] stipulated decision ultimately entere 1

--- 'The respective amounts shown above for each ofpetitioner's taxable years 1998, 1999, and 2000 are less than the.respective amounts that respondent deter- mined in the notice for each ofthose taxable years. The amount ofthe addition to tax under sec. 6651(a)(1) for petitioner's taxable year 1999 that respondent determined in the notice was ($196). The respective amounts ofthe deficiencies in petitioner's tax for his taxable years 1998 and 2000 with respect to which respondent seeks summary a

The burden ofshowing reasonable cause under section 6651(a) remains on the taxpayer.

Paragraphs (1) and (2) ofsection 6651(a) provide that a taxpayer shall be liable for additions to tax for failure to timely file a return and failure to timely pay tax, unless it is shown that such failure was due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect.

Rul. 73-133, 1973-1 C.B. 605. When a return is required to be filed on or before a prescribed date and the return is delivered by U.S. mail after that date, the date ofthe U.S. postmark is deemed the date ofdelivery.. Sec. 7502(a). To take advantage ofthis "timely mailing, timely filing" rule, the taxpayer must demonstrate that t

Because petitioner did not petition the Court with respect to the F-Star Property Management notice, respondent assessed the deficiencies for petitioner's taxable years 2004 and 2005 and the addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1) for its taxable year 2004, as determined in that notice.

--- MAJORITY --- OPINION Buch, Judge: Respondent determined deficiencies, additions to tax, and penalties with respect to petitioners’ joint Federal income tax as follows: Year Addition to tax Deficiency sec. 6651(a)(1) Penalty sec. 6662(a) 2006 $3,540 $100 $708.00 2007 3,901 100 780.20 2008 8,127 -0-1,625.40 Because the parties have resolved all other issues by stipulation, the only issue for the Court to decide is the amount of the penalty under section 6662(a) for 2008. Determining that amoun

In addition, respondent determined that petitioner and her husband were liable for an $8,911,858 deficiency, a $2,044,590 section 6651(a)(1) addition to tax, and a $1,782,372 section 6662(a) accuracy-related penalty.

eating petitioner as a nonfiler, on November 25, 2009, respondent mailed petitioner a notice of deficiency in which he determined the following deficiencies in Federal income tax and additions to tax: Additions to tax Sec. Year Deficiency 6651(a)(1) Sec. 6651(a)(2) Sec. 6654 2002 $283,555 $35,563.73 $39,515.25 $9,045.50 2003 789,518 147,943.58 164,381.75 20,370.53 2004 280,241 56,728.35 63,031.50 8,030.86 Attached to the notice of deficiency was a Form 4549-A, Income Tax Discrepancy Adjustments,

ax for failure to timely file under 1 SMVED MAR 2 8 2012 - 2 - section 6651(a)(1)l and accuracy-relatedpenalties under section 6662(a) for taxable years 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006.2 Respondent determined deficiencies in Crews All Nite Bail Bonds, Inc 's (Crews) Federal income tax, with additions to tax for failure to timely file under section 6651(a)(.1) and accuracy- related penalties under section 6662(a) for taxable years 2004, 2005, and 2006.

6651(a) (1) 2003 $23,267 $4,653.40. $2,323.65 Aaron S. Walker (Docket No. 1466-08) Penalty Addition to Tax Year Deficiency Sec. 6662(a) Sec. 6651(a) (1) 2003 $16,443 $3,288.60 $1,109.55 Alex K. Walker (Docket No. 1467-08) Penalty Addition to Tax Year Deficiency Sec. 6662(a) Sec. 6651(a) (1) 2003 $25,387 $5,077.40 $2,692.65 - 3 - Donald R. and

cember 20, 2012. Jorge Martinez, pro se. Timothy R. Berry, for respondent. MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION COHEN, Judae: Respondent determined a $3,575 deficiency in petitioner's Federal income tax for 2008 and a $55.95 addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1). Respondenthas now conceded the addition to tax. The issue for decision is whetherpetitioner is entitled to dependency exemption deductions and a child tax SERVED DEC 2 0 2012 - 2 - [*2] credit for two ofhis sons who resided with h

6651(a) (1) 2003 $23,267 $4,653.40. $2,323.65 Aaron S. Walker (Docket No. 1466-08) Penalty Addition to Tax Year Deficiency Sec. 6662(a) Sec. 6651(a) (1) 2003 $16,443 $3,288.60 $1,109.55 Alex K. Walker (Docket No. 1467-08) Penalty Addition to Tax Year Deficiency Sec. 6662(a) Sec. 6651(a) (1) 2003 $25,387 $5,077.40 $2,692.65 - 3 - Donald R. and

6651(a) (1) 2003 $23,267 $4,653.40. $2,323.65 Aaron S. Walker (Docket No. 1466-08) Penalty Addition to Tax Year Deficiency Sec. 6662(a) Sec. 6651(a) (1) 2003 $16,443 $3,288.60 $1,109.55 Alex K. Walker (Docket No. 1467-08) Penalty Addition to Tax Year Deficiency Sec. 6662(a) Sec. 6651(a) (1) 2003 $25,387 $5,077.40 $2,692.65 - 3 - Donald R. and

6651(a) (1) 2003 $23,267 $4,653.40. $2,323.65 Aaron S. Walker (Docket No. 1466-08) Penalty Addition to Tax Year Deficiency Sec. 6662(a) Sec. 6651(a) (1) 2003 $16,443 $3,288.60 $1,109.55 Alex K. Walker (Docket No. 1467-08) Penalty Addition to Tax Year Deficiency Sec. 6662(a) Sec. 6651(a) (1) 2003 $25,387 $5,077.40 $2,692.65 - 3 - Donald R. and

In addition, the settling ofthe penalty account ofa responsible person may be complicated by questions about liability for interest and additions to tax under section 6651(a)(3) (both by the employer on its liability for the trust fund tax in the first instance and by the responsible person on his liability for the penalty).

ncy in income tax for 2004 of$100,593 and a penalty of $20,118.60 under section 6662(a).1 The notice also determined a deficiency in income tax for 2005 of$8,352, a penalty of$1,670.40 under section 6662(a), and an addition to tax of$2,087.75 under section 6651(a)(1). On August 26, 2008, petitioner Mr. Young timely filed a petition on behalfofhimselfand his spouse for redetermination ofthe deficiencies, penalties, and addition to tax for 2004 and 2005 with this Court.2 However, petitioner Mrs. Y

section 6651(a) remains on the taxpayer. Higbee v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 438, 446-448 (2001). To show reasonable cause, petitioner must demonstrate that he exercised ordinary business care and prudence but nevertheless was unable to file his income tax returns by their due dates. See United States v. Boyle, 469 U.S. 241, - 6 - 246 (1985); sec. 30

On or about December 16, 2002, respondent mailed to petitioner by certified mail at the San Francisco address a notice ofdeficiency determining a deficiency of$5,449 in her 2000 Federal income tax, a section 6651(a)(1) addition to tax for failure to file of$109, and an accuracy-relatedpenalty under section 6662(a) of $518.

y Sec. 6662(a) Sec. 6651(a)(1) 2004 $9,741 --- $488.70 2005 11,990 $2,398.0 1,199.02 2006 10,626 2,125.2 --- 1Respondent concedes Esgar i not liable for the sec. 6662(a) penalty for the 2005 and 2006 ax years, and Esgar concedes it is liable for the sec. 6651(a) 1) addition to tax for the 2004 and 2005 tax years. 2 (. . . continued) Rules of Practice and Procedure. - 4 - The Holmeses Penalty Year Deficiency Sec. 6662(a) 2004 $31,830 $6,366.00 2005 24,572 4,914.00 2006 25,894 5,178.80 The Tempels

On June 15, 2009, respondent assessed the total tax shown in petitioner's 2008 return, the addition to tax shown in that return for petitioner's failure to pay required estimated tax, an addition to tax under section 6651(a)(2), and interest as provided by law.

We, therefore, hold that petitioner is liable for the section 6651(a)( ) addition to tax for taxable year 2000.

Section 6662(a) Penalties and Section 6651(a)(1) Addition to Tax Although petitioner has not expressly conceded the section 6651(a) addition to tax and the section 6662(a) penalties, she admitted at trial that any underpayment oftax required to be shown on her return for each year in issue is due to her negligence, and she further agrees that her 2004 return was filed late.3 Furthermore, petitioner did not argue that she acted with reasonable cause and in good f

The addition continues to accrue for any month during which an installment agreement for payment ofthe tax is in effect, although the rate is reduced from 0.5% ofthe tax shown on the return to 0.25% ofsuch amount in such circumstances.15 Sec. 6651(h). Section 6159 authorizes the IRS to enter into installment agreements for the sati

ces to sections are to sections ofthe Internal Revenue Code. SERVED DEC 1 9 2012 -2- [*2] IRS's determinations ofthe following income-tax deficiencies, additions to tax, and penalty: Addition to tax Penalty Addition to tax sec. sec. Year Deficiency sec. 6651(a)(1) 6651(a)(2) 6662(a) 2007 $6,787.45 $530.10 --- $1,357.49 2008 27,695.00 --- (1) --- ITo be computed at a later date. Various provisions in the stipulation resolve all the noncomputational issues in the case except for: (1) whetherHalata

he cost basis ofthe Bellagio property is not less than $4,335,471. Respondent concedes that petitioners are not liable for 2001 for capital gains tax allegedly arising from the sale ofthe Bellagio property. Petitioners concede additions to tax under sec. 6651(a)(1) and (2) to the extent there is a tax deficiency for the years at issue. Petitioners concede the sec. 6662(a) penalty for the years at issue to the extent there is a tax deficiency except that respondent concedes that for any deficienc

Section 6651(a)(1), which imposes an addition to tax for failing to file certain other types ofreturns, such as income-tax returns, exempts a taxpayer from the addition to tax if"it is shown that such failure is due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect". Interpreting this last brase, 26 C.F.R. section 301.6651-1(c)(1) provides: ''Ifth

etitioner raises for the first time on brief; (2) whetherproperty transactions that petitioner entered into in 1991 and 1992 qualify for like-kind exchange treatmentpursuant to section 1031; (3) whetherpetitioner is liable for additions to tax under section 6651(a) for 1991, 1992, and 1994; and (4) whetherpetitioner is liable for accuracy-relatedpenalties under section 6662(a) for 1991, 1992, and 1994.

In a notice ofdeficiency dated April 15, 2010 (notice), respondent determined an $8,207 deficiency in petitioner's 2007 Federal income tax and imposed a $2,051.75 section 6651(a)(1) addition to tax and a $1,641.40 section 6662(a) accuracy-relatedpenalty.

In a notice ofdeficiency dated February 22, 2010 (notice), respondent determined a $917 deficiency in petitioners' 2007 Federal income tax and imposed a section 6651(a)(1) addition to tax.2 The issue for decision is whether petitioners realized and must recognize income as a result ofthe discharge ofcertain credit card debt.

Sween (the McSweens)2 separately petitioned the Court for redetermination of the following deficiencies in Federal income tax and additions to tax and penalties:3 . Kayln M. Carpenter, docket No. 15589-10 Addition to Tax and Penalty Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a) (1) Sec. 6662 (a) 2004 $21,125 $496 $4,225 Scott A. Van Wyhe, docket No. 15590-10 Addition to Tax and Penalty Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a) (1) Sec. 6662(a) 2004 $839 $42 $168 2006 15 15 3 John C. and Sharon L. McSween, docket No. 15591-10

Respondent has conceded the section 6651(a) addition to tax for 2001.

Paragraphs (1) and (2) ofsection 6651(a) provide that a taxpayer shall be subject to the additions to tax unless it is shown that such failures were due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect.

CT AND OPINION KERRIGAN, Judae: Respondent determined the following deficiency, addition to tax, and penalty with respect to petitioners' Federal income tax for tax year 2008: ( SERVE DEC 'l 9 2012 - 2 - [*2] Addition to Tax Penalty Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a) Sec. 6662(a) 2008 $10,740 $535 $2,148 Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code (Code) in effect for the year at issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules ofPractice and Procedure.

6651(a) (1) 2003 $23,267 $4,653.40. $2,323.65 Aaron S. Walker (Docket No. 1466-08) Penalty Addition to Tax Year Deficiency Sec. 6662(a) Sec. 6651(a) (1) 2003 $16,443 $3,288.60 $1,109.55 Alex K. Walker (Docket No. 1467-08) Penalty Addition to Tax Year Deficiency Sec. 6662(a) Sec. 6651(a) (1) 2003 $25,387 $5,077.40 $2,692.65 - 3 - Donald R. and

6651(a); see United States v. Boyle, 469 U.S. 241, 245 (1985). Respondent introduced evidence that petitioner did not file income tax returns for 2003 through 2006, and petitioner stipulated that he did not file these returns. Respondent has therefore met the burden ofproduction under section 7491(c) with respect to the section 6651(a)(1) addi

29776-09. Filed January 3, 2012. R determined additional interest income, disallowed certain business expense deductions P claimed on his 2007 tax return, and determined a deficiency in income tax, an addition to tax for failure to timely file under sec. 6651(a) (1), I.R.C., and an accuracy-related penalty under sec. 6662(a), I.R.C., for P's 2007 tax year. Held: P is liable for the deficiency. Held, further, P is liable for the addition to tax for failure to timely file his tax return under sec.

6651(a) (1) 2003 $23,267 $4,653.40. $2,323.65 Aaron S. Walker (Docket No. 1466-08) Penalty Addition to Tax Year Deficiency Sec. 6662(a) Sec. 6651(a) (1) 2003 $16,443 $3,288.60 $1,109.55 Alex K. Walker (Docket No. 1467-08) Penalty Addition to Tax Year Deficiency Sec. 6662(a) Sec. 6651(a) (1) 2003 $25,387 $5,077.40 $2,692.65 - 3 - Donald R. and

6651(a) (1) 2003 $23,267 $4,653.40. $2,323.65 Aaron S. Walker (Docket No. 1466-08) Penalty Addition to Tax Year Deficiency Sec. 6662(a) Sec. 6651(a) (1) 2003 $16,443 $3,288.60 $1,109.55 Alex K. Walker (Docket No. 1467-08) Penalty Addition to Tax Year Deficiency Sec. 6662(a) Sec. 6651(a) (1) 2003 $25,387 $5,077.40 $2,692.65 - 3 - Donald R. and

spondent has satisfied the burden ofproduction under section 7491(c). On that record, the Court further finds that petitioner has failed to carry his burden ofestablishing that he is not liable for his taxable year 2006 for the addition to tax under section 6651(a). See Hiabee v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 438, 446 (2001). With respect to respondent's determinations that petitioner is liable for the fraud penalty under section 6663(a) for each ofhis taxable years 2005 and 2006, - 7 - [*7] section 66

-0- -0- After concessions,1 the issues for decision are whether petitioners are: (1) Entitled.to a loss deduction of $1 million for 2003 and corresponding net operating loss (NOL) carryforwards for 2004 and 2005; (2) liable for a section 6651(a) (1) addition to tax for 2003 and 2004; and (3) liable for a section 6662(a) accuracy-related penalty for 2003.

6651(a) (1) 2003 $23,267 $4,653.40. $2,323.65 Aaron S. Walker (Docket No. 1466-08) Penalty Addition to Tax Year Deficiency Sec. 6662(a) Sec. 6651(a) (1) 2003 $16,443 $3,288.60 $1,109.55 Alex K. Walker (Docket No. 1467-08) Penalty Addition to Tax Year Deficiency Sec. 6662(a) Sec. 6651(a) (1) 2003 $25,387 $5,077.40 $2,692.65 - 3 - Donald R. and

Sween (the McSweens)2 separately petitioned the Court for redetermination of the following deficiencies in Federal income tax and additions to tax and penalties:3 . Kayln M. Carpenter, docket No. 15589-10 Addition to Tax and Penalty Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a) (1) Sec. 6662 (a) 2004 $21,125 $496 $4,225 Scott A. Van Wyhe, docket No. 15590-10 Addition to Tax and Penalty Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a) (1) Sec. 6662(a) 2004 $839 $42 $168 2006 15 15 3 John C. and Sharon L. McSween, docket No. 15591-10

y Sec. 6662(a) Sec. 6651(a)(1) 2004 $9,741 --- $488.70 2005 11,990 $2,398.0 1,199.02 2006 10,626 2,125.2 --- 1Respondent concedes Esgar i not liable for the sec. 6662(a) penalty for the 2005 and 2006 ax years, and Esgar concedes it is liable for the sec. 6651(a) 1) addition to tax for the 2004 and 2005 tax years. 2 (. . . continued) Rules of Practice and Procedure. - 4 - The Holmeses Penalty Year Deficiency Sec. 6662(a) 2004 $31,830 $6,366.00 2005 24,572 4,914.00 2006 25,894 5,178.80 The Tempels

ax for failure to timely file under 1 SMVED MAR 2 8 2012 - 2 - section 6651(a)(1)l and accuracy-relatedpenalties under section 6662(a) for taxable years 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006.2 Respondent determined deficiencies in Crews All Nite Bail Bonds, Inc 's (Crews) Federal income tax, with additions to tax for failure to timely file under section 6651(a)(.1) and accuracy- related penalties under section 6662(a) for taxable years 2004, 2005, and 2006.

They are resolved by the Court as follows: (1) the decedent, Edward Coaxum, retained incidents of ownership in six life insurance policies, re dering their values includable in the value of the gross estate, (2) the value of the annuities owned by the decedent is included in the value of the gross estate, and (3) the estate is liable fo the section 6651(a) (1) addition to tax.

It also listed a section 6651(a)[(1) f!ailure to 1 file addition to tax of $3,934.34, a section 6651(a) (2) failure to pay addition to tax of $1;486.31, a section.6654 failure to pay estimated tax addition to tax of $701.41, and interest, computed to October 10, 2007, of $2,846.71.

On September 29, 2008, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) assessed petitioners' self- reported income tax liability, the estimated tax addition to tax under section 6654, and the currently due failure to pay addition to tax of $320.19 under section 6651(a) (2) and credited the withholding payments.

Nygren, for respondent MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION CHIECHI, Judge: Respondent determined the following defi- ciencies in, addition under section 6651(a) (1)T to, and accuracy- All section refêÝences are t o the Iriternal Revenue Code (Code) in effect for the years at issue.

al, briefing, and opinion. Respondent determined the following deficiencies, additions to tax, and penalty:1 1Unless otherwise indicated,. all section references are to (continued. . . ) SERVED JUL 2 5 2011 Additions to Tax Penalty Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a) (1) Sec. 6662(a) 2003 $68,703 $17,176 $13,740 2005 4,632 1,158 -0- After concessions, the sole issue presented to this Court is whether petitioners are liable for the 10-percent additional tax under section 72(t) for early distributions fr

iew a determination of respondent's Office of Appeals (Appeals) sustaining a proposed levy upon petitioners' property.1 Section references are to the Internal Revenue Code, and (continued...) giRVED JUL 1 3 20 1 -2- Respondent proposed the levy to collect a $24,624 deficiency in petitioners' 2006 Federal income tax, a $2,603 addition to tax under section 6651(a) (1), and a $4,925 accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a).

. The respondent (whom we refer to as the IRS) issued to the petitioner, Carolyn Gay Harper, notices of deficiency determining the following deficiencies in taxes and additions to tax: Addition to Tax Addition to Tax Addition to Tax Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a) (1) Sec. 6651(a) (2) Sec. 6654 2005 $6,211 $1,397.47 $869.54 $249.10 2006 4,060 913.50 324.80 192.13 The IRS has conceded that Ms. Harper is not liable for the addition to tax for failing to make estimated tax payments of her 2005 tax lia

On August 13, 2001, respondent applied a certain credit against that tax and assessed an addition to tax under section 6651(a) (2)2 and interest as provided by law.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION HAINES, Judge: Petitioner petitioned the Court for redetermination of a deficiency of $7,743 and an addition to tax under section 6651(a) (1)1 of $111 for 2006.

SERVED Jun 02 2011 - 2 - MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND'OPINION ARMEN, Special Trial Judge: Respondent5determined a deficiency in petitioner's 2008 Federal income tax of $8,000 and an addition to tax of $29.70 under section 6651(a) (1) for failure to timely file a tax return.

MEMORANDUM FINDIN S OF FACT AND OPINION GALE, Judge: Respondent determined a deficiency of $3,409 and an addition to tax under section 6651(a) (1) of $852 with respect to petitioner's 2003 Federal income tax.

These collection actions stem from a penalty under section 6656 and an addition to tax under section 6651(a) (2) relating to Custom Stairs' .unpaid employment taxes reported on Form 941, Employer' s Quarterly Federal Tax Return, for the second quarter of 2008.

I Gleason's sole and separate property or community 'property; (4) whether petitioners are liable for àdditions tå tax under section 6651(a) (1) for failure to file their 2001, 2002, and 2003 tax returns;2 (5) whether Mr.

The Commissioner met his burden of production on this one because Thompson stipulated that he did not file his 2006 return. The Commissioner has also met his burden for the second addition to tax--the one imposed. On those who fail to timely pay taxes shown on a return. See sec. 6651(a) (2). Thompson didn't file a return, but sect

SERVED Dec 27 2011 - 2 - addition to tax under section 6651(a) (1)2 for filing a delinquent return (late filing additions), a $37,006.25 addition to tax under section 6651(a) (2) for failing to pay the tax timely (late payment additions) and a $1,829 section 6654 addition to tax for failing to pay estimated taxes (estimated tax additions) regarding 2004.

6651(a) (1) 2003 $17,530 $13,147 --- 2004 25,306 18,979 --- 2005 19,355 14,516 $4,838 SERVED Jan112011 - 2 - As an alternative to the section 6663 penalty, in the notice, respondent determined an accuracy-related penalty under section 6662. After concessions by petitioner, the sole issue for decision is whether he is liable for the penalties

iew a determination of respondent's Office of Appeals (Appeals) sustaining a proposed levy upon petitioner's property.1 Section references are to che Internal Revenue Code, and (continued...) SERVED JUL 123 2011 -2- Respondent proposed the levy to collect a $20,532 deficiency in petitioner's 2005 Federal income tax, a $4,106 addition to tax under section 6651(a) (1), and a $4,106 accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a).

On September ll, 2006, respondent sent to Woodside Ranch a notice of deficiency setting forth respondent's determination of Woodside Ranch's $594,000.Federal income tax deficiency for 2002 plus an estimated tax-penalty under section 6654, delinquency additions to tax under section 6651(a) (2) and (3), and an * accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(b) (1).

Respondent determined income tax deficiencies and additions to tax pursuént to section 6651(a) (1) and (2)1 for 2004 and 2006 and under section 6654(a) for 2006 All section references are to the Internal Reventie Code, (continued .

- 7 - The Appeals officer refused his request. On June 19, 2008, the Appeals Office mailed to Kreisler a notice of determination. Kreisler filed a timely petition with the Tax Court. At the time he filed the petition, Kreisler lived in Illinois." On November 5, 2009, the bankruptcy court signed an agreed order allowing the IRS's

in, for respondent . MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION COHEN, Judge: In separate notices of deficiency, respondent determined deficiencies and additions to tax as follows: SERVED Jan 11 2011 - 2 - Additions to Tax Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(f) Sec. 6651(a) (2) Sec. 6654 1992 $108,993 $81,744.75 --- $4,753.78 1993 26,993 20,244.75 --- 1,130.99 1994 21,531 15,609.98 $5,382.75 1,117.32 1995 51,236 37,146.10 12,809.00 2,778.13 1996 67,931 49,249.98 16,982.75 3,615.65 1997 70,330 50,989.25 17,58

TES TAX COURT ILLYA BELL, Petitioner y. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 26557-09. Filed December 22, 2011. P filed his 1996 tax return over 10 years late. R disallowed certain deductions claimed on Schedule C and determined a sec. 6651(a) (1), I.R.C., addition to tax and a sec. 6662(a) accuracy-related penalty. Held: R's determinations are sustained to the extent decided herein. Illya Bell, pro se. Laura J. Mullin and Katherine Holmes Ankeny, for respondent. ggfE0 DEC 2 2

Kurtz's 2005 Federal income tax, a $4,106 addition to tax under section 6651(a) (1), and a $4,106 accuracy-related penalty under section 6662.

- 8 - a II.' Additions to Tax s R spondent -determined that petitioner is liable for additions to-tax for failure to tïmely file a return under section 6651(a) (1) , failure /to timely pay tax under, section 6651(a) (2) , and failure to pay estimated income tax under section Section 6651(a) (1) imposes an addition to -tax for-failure to timely file a required Federal income tax return, unless the taxpayer can -establish that the failure is due to -reasonable a cause-and not due to'willfu]

2005; (3) whether petitioner is liable for additions to tax under section 6651(a) (1) for failure to file his 2004, 2005, and 2006 tax returns; (4) whether petitioner is liable for additions to tax under section 6651(a) (2) for failure to pay his 2004, 2005, and 2006 taxes; and (5) whether petitioner is liable for additions to tax under section 6654 (a) for failure to make required 2005 and 2006 estimated tax pay

The IRS determined that D&R was liable for the following additions to tax under section 6651(a) (1) : 4Sec.

SERVEDMar082011 || - 2 - Respondent issued a notice of deficiency on July 26, 2007, in which he determined a deficiency of $10,375 in petitioners' 2004 Federal income tax, an addition to tax of $2,593.75 under section 6651(a) (1), and an accuracy-related penalty of $2,075 under section 6662(a).

-3- • whether Candace Kelly and Edward Kelly are each liable for the additions to tax under section 6651(a) (1) and (2)3 for their failures to file tax returns and pay taxes in 2005.

Respondent also determined an addition to tax of $1,056 under section 6651(a) (1) for failure to timely file a return for 2005 and accuracy-related pena]ties of $1,141 and $1, 026 for 2005 and 2006, respectively, under section 6662 (a) .

84 UNITED STATES TAX COURT LOUISE E. NAGEL AND GARY B. NAGEL, Petitioners . v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 30645-08. Filed August 2, 2011. R determined deficiencies in Federal income taxes and additions to tax pursuant to sec. 6651(a) (1), I.R.C., for Ps' 2004 and 2006 tax years. After concessions, the issues for decision are: (1) Whether Ps are entitled to deduct as a theft loss for their 2004 or 2006 tax year expenses relating to the foreclosure of the mortgage on t

Respondent determined a deficiency of $12,264 in petitioner's.2005 Federal income tax as well as a section 6651(a) (1) addition to tax of $2,469 for failure to file a | Federal income tax return and a section 6662(a) accuracy-related penalty of $2,452.

references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, unless otherwise indicated. Wk0 NOV 1 6 2011 1 - 2 - income tax and additions to tax for the tax year.s 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005: Additions to Tax Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a) (1) Sec. 6651(a) (2) Sec. 6654 (a) 1999 $24,323 $5,472.68 1 N/A 2000 46,355 10,429.88 $2,203.78 2001 24,494 5,511.15 1 978.87 2002 16,994 .3,823.65 1 567.92 2003 20,651 4,646.48 1 540.44 2004 32,956 7,415.10 1 956.62 2005 39,956 8,990.10

Section 6651(a) (1) Addition to Tax Section 6651(a) (1) imposes an addition to tax for failure to file a return on the date prescribed unless the taxpayer can establish that the failure is due to reasònable cause and not due to willful neglect.4 The parties do not dispute that petitioner failed to file a Federal income tax return for 2004. Accordi

In a notice of deficiency dated January 31, 2008, respondent determined a $9,527 deficiency in, and a $2,333.75 section 6651(a) (1) addition to tax with respect to, petitioner's 2004 Federal income tax.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION CHIECHI, Judge: Respondent determined the following defi- ciencies in, additions under section 6651(a) (1)1 to, and 1All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect at all relevant times.

6651(a) (2)' provides that a taxpayer whoedoes notspay the tax reported on a returà must pay an addition to tax equalsto 0.5 percent per month of the amount not paid, not exceeding 25 percentrin the aggregate. "In 1986, former sec. 6653(a) (1) was renumbered as former sec. 6653(a) (1) (A). TRA 1986, sec. 1503(a) (effective for returns the due

e proceeds to their Roth IRAs. R determined that Ps were each liable for: (1) Excise taxes on excess contributions to their Roth IRAs under sec. 4973, I.R.C.; (2) an accuracyarelated penalty under sec. 6662(a), I.R.C.; and (3) additions to tax under sec. 6651(a) (1), I.R.C., for failing to filer the appropriate information returns . Cases of the following petitioners are àonsolidated herewith: Tara L. Slaight, docket No. 14523-08; Tyler D. Hellweg, docket No. 14525-08; and Zachary D. Slaight, do

the nearest dollar. -SERVED APR -62011 - 2 - this opinion shall not be treated as precedent for any other case. Respondent determined deficiencies in petitioner's Federal income taxes and additions to tax as follows: Addition to Tax Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a) (1) 2000 $12,224 $2,926 2001 12,073 1,660 2002 11,921 1,509 2003 2,764 The determined deficiencies were the result of the denial of deductions for alimony paid that were claimed on petitioner's tax returns for the years at issue. We must

OF 1954 Year Income Tax Section 6651(a) Section 6653(a) 1966 $12,453.10 $3,113.27 $622.65 Further, that there are deficiencies in income tax together with additions to the tax due from the Petitioner Elmer H.

Held flirther, t $49; 580 paid t-oaD'.s caregivers a for iheir quálified lcng-term care services was an amount paid for medical care as defined in sec.

solidated cases, respondent determined deficiencies, additions to tax, and accuracy-related penalties with respect to petitioner' s Federal income taxes as follows: saavao AEP 2 8 2011 - 2 - Accuracy- Addition to tax related penalty Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a) Sec. 6662(a) 2001 $33,566 $7,773 $6,713 2002 45,352 10,697 9,070 2003 94,168 . 22,896 18,834 . 2004 36,878 8,554 7,376 2005 18,217 4,099 -0- Respondent also determined a section 6651(a) (2)1 addition to tax for 2005.2 Petitioner timely pe

eceived a' taxabl distributio f $400 000 from United Employee Benežit Fun (UEB ) n 2002; ( ) alt na ively, i petitioner did not receive a tax ble distribution fr m UEBF in 2002, whether SERVED JUN - 6 2011 -2- petitioner received $412,973 of discharge of indebtedness income in '2003; (3) whether petitioners are liable for an addition to tax under section 6651(a) (1) for 2003; and (4) whether petitioners are liable for a section 6662 penalty for 2002 or 2003.

After concessions,1 the issues for decision are: (1) Whether petitioner is liable for additions to tax under section 6651(a) (1) for failure to timely file Federal income tax returns for 2004, 2005, and 2006; (2) whether petitioner is liable for additions to tax under section 6651(a) (2) for failure to timely Chi Sept.

ND OPINION SWIFT, Judge: Respondent determined deficiencies, penalties, and additions to tax with respect to petitioners' Federal income taxes for 2002, 2003, and 2004 as follows: SERVED Jun 22 2011 - 2 - Additions to Tax Penalties Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a) Sec. 6662(a) 2002 $41,465 $9,735 $8,293 2003 42,771 10,064 8,554 2004 54,959 13,076 10,992 The issue for decision is whether petitioners have substantiated claimed business and entertainment expenses under sections 162, 274, and 6001 relat

EVED JAN 31 2011 - 2 - MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION CH ECHI, Judge: Respondent determined the following defi- ciencies in, additions under section 6651(a) (1)2 to, and accurac -related penalties under section 6662 (a) on each peti- tioner' s Federal income tax (tax) : Accuracy-Related Addition to Tax Penalty Petitioner Year Deficiency Under Sec.

Oliver, pro se. Ric D. Hulshoff, for respondent. MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION COHEN, Judge: Respondent determined Federal income tax deficiencies and additions to tax as follows: SERVED FEB 24 2011 - 2 - Additions to Tax Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a) (1) Sec. 6651(a) (2) Sec. 6654(a) 2000 $10,163.00 $1,234.80 $2,540.75 $265.40 2001 6,082.00 999.00 954.60 -0- 2002 88,833.00 19,987.43 13,769.12 -0- 2003 37,460.00 6,345.00 3,384.00 711.05 2004 26,141.80 5,794.61 1,545.23 746.32 In an ame

- 11 - Notice of Deficiency On December 15, 2006, the IRS issued Mary Pen .and a notice of deficiency.' The notice stated that the IRS de ermined (i) that she had deficiencies in tax of $2,048,607 for 1998, $558,401 for 1999, and $686,371 for 2001; (ii) that she was liable for additions to tax under section 6651(a) (1) of $512, 01.75 for 1998 and $23,477 for 1999; and (iii) that she was liablé for an addition to tax under section 6654(a) of $93,740.6EL for 1998.

Respondent also determined for 20iO5 an addition to tax for failure to file timely under section 66:51(a) (1) of $395.77 and an addition to tax for failure to pay timely under section 6651(a) (2) of $351.80.

solidated cases, respondent determined deficiencies, additions to tax, and accuracy-related penalties with respect to petitioner' s Federal income taxes as follows: saavao AEP 2 8 2011 - 2 - Accuracy- Addition to tax related penalty Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a) Sec. 6662(a) 2001 $33,566 $7,773 $6,713 2002 45,352 10,697 9,070 2003 94,168 . 22,896 18,834 . 2004 36,878 8,554 7,376 2005 18,217 4,099 -0- Respondent also determined a section 6651(a) (2)1 addition to tax for 2005.2 Petitioner timely pe

The collection action stems from unpaid employment taxes reported on Form 941, Employer's Quarterly Federal Tax Return, penalties under section 6656, and additions to tax under section 6651(a) (2) with respect to the third quarter of 2005 and all four quarters of 2006.

are: (1) Whether petitioners are entitled to exclude from gross income $35,000 that petitioner wife received pursuant to a settlement of several claims against her former employer, and (2) whether petitioners are liable.for an addition to tax under section 6651(a) (1). FINDINGS OF FACT Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. The stipulation of facts and the attached exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference. At the time the petition was filed, petitioner husband resided

* - 3 - The 'IRS assessed the unpaid balance as well as additions toa tax for failure to timely pay tax under section 6651(a) (2)- and failure to make estimated tax payments under section 6654.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION CHIECHI, Judge: Respondent determined deficiencies in,· and an addition under section 6651(a) (1)1 tc, petitioners' Federal income tax (tax) as follows: All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code (Code) in effect for the years at issue.

6651(a) (1) 2001 $986,869 $740,151.75 $246,717.25 2002 1,280,782 960,586.50 320,195.50 2003 1,013,949 760,461.75 --- After concessions, the issues for decision are: (1) Whether petitioner is liable for tax on amounts he received from two domestic trusts; (2) whether petitioner is liable for tax on capital gain from a domestic trust; (3) whethe

Respondent contended that the late-filing addition to tax of section 6651(a) (1)1 should be applied at a rate of 5 Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to (continued...) -4- percent per month, instead of the 4.5 percent rate used in the notice of deficiency.

07. Í SERVED FEB 2 4 2011 - 2 - behalf for the tax years at issue. See sec. 6020(b).2 Respondent issued a notice of deficiency in which he determined Federal income tax deficiencies and additions to tax as follows:3 Additions to Tax Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a) (1) Sec. 6651(a) (2) Sec. 6654(a) 2000 $2,996.00 $674.10 $749.00 $161.14 2001 204.20 100..00 51.05 -0- 2002 25,478.00 5,732.55 6,369.50 851.43 2004 3,329.00 749.03 TBD -0- Amount to be determined under sec. 6651(a) (2). Petitioner timely

iciency to petitioner in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. In the notice respondent determined deficiencies and additions to tax in petitioner's Federal income taxes for the taxable years 2000 and 2001 as follows: Additions to Tax Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a) (1) Sec. 6651(a) (2) Sec. 6654 2000 $686,535 $154,470.38 $171,633.75 $36,925.11 2001 140,049 31,511.03 35,012.25 5,596.91 The first page of the notice of deficiency states as follows: "Last Date to File a Petition With the United States T

The Commissioner met his burden of production on this one because Thompson stipulated that he did not file his 2006 return. The Commissioner has also met his burden for the second addition to tax--the one imposed. On those who fail to timely pay taxes shown on a return. See sec. 6651(a) (2). Thompson didn't file a return, but sect

On September ll, 2006, respondent sent to Woodside Ranch a notice of deficiency setting forth respondent's determination of Woodside Ranch's $594,000.Federal income tax deficiency for 2002 plus an estimated tax-penalty under section 6654, delinquency additions to tax under section 6651(a) (2) and (3), and an * accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(b) (1).

Respondent also determined an addition to tax for failure to file timely under section 6651(a) (1).of $2,271.50 and an accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a) of $4,322.60 for 2004.

In a notice of deficiency dated October 19, 2009, respondent determined a $4,884 deficiency in and a $743.73 section 6651(a) (1) addition to tax with respect to petitioner's 2007 Federal income tax.

al, briefing, and opinion. Respondent determined the following deficiencies, additions to tax, and penalty:1 1Unless otherwise indicated,. all section references are to (continued. . . ) SERVED JUL 2 5 2011 Additions to Tax Penalty Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a) (1) Sec. 6662(a) 2003 $68,703 $17,176 $13,740 2005 4,632 1,158 -0- After concessions, the sole issue presented to this Court is whether petitioners are liable for the 10-percent additional tax under section 72(t) for early distributions fr

in, for respondent . MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION COHEN, Judge: In separate notices of deficiency, respondent determined deficiencies and additions to tax as follows: SERVED Jan 11 2011 - 2 - Additions to Tax Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(f) Sec. 6651(a) (2) Sec. 6654 1992 $108,993 $81,744.75 --- $4,753.78 1993 26,993 20,244.75 --- 1,130.99 1994 21,531 15,609.98 $5,382.75 1,117.32 1995 51,236 37,146.10 12,809.00 2,778.13 1996 67,931 49,249.98 16,982.75 3,615.65 1997 70,330 50,989.25 17,58

On September ll, 2006, respondent sent to Woodside Ranch a notice of deficiency setting forth respondent's determination of Woodside Ranch's $594,000.Federal income tax deficiency for 2002 plus an estimated tax-penalty under section 6654, delinquency additions to tax under section 6651(a) (2) and (3), and an * accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(b) (1).

6651(a) (1) 2001 $986,869 $740,151.75 $246,717.25 2002 1,280,782 960,586.50 320,195.50 2003 1,013,949 760,461.75 --- After concessions, the issues for decision are: (1) Whether petitioner is liable for tax on amounts he received from two domestic trusts; (2) whether petitioner is liable for tax on capital gain from a domestic trust; (3) whethe

On September ll, 2006, respondent sent to Woodside Ranch a notice of deficiency setting forth respondent's determination of Woodside Ranch's $594,000.Federal income tax deficiency for 2002 plus an estimated tax-penalty under section 6654, delinquency additions to tax under section 6651(a) (2) and (3), and an * accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(b) (1).

The IRS also sent a notice of deficiency to "Shockley Communications Corporation" at the Washington, D.C., address reported on the 2001 Form 1120, determining a deficiency in tax of $41,566,515, a penalty under section 6662 of $8,313,303, and an addition to tax under section 6651(a) (1) of $2,078,276.

EVED JAN 31 2011 - 2 - MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION CH ECHI, Judge: Respondent determined the following defi- ciencies in, additions under section 6651(a) (1)2 to, and accurac -related penalties under section 6662 (a) on each peti- tioner' s Federal income tax (tax) : Accuracy-Related Addition to Tax Penalty Petitioner Year Deficiency Under Sec.

ld, for respondent . MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION MARVEL, Judge: Respondent determined the following deficiencies in and additions to petitioner's 2004-2006 Federal income taxes: SERVED FEB -1 7.011 - 2 - Additions to Tax Year Deficienay Sec. 6651(a) (1) Sec. 6651(a) (2) Sec. 6654 2004 $17,226 $2,076 $2,215 239 2005 16,4s14 1,760 1,252 -0- 2006 11,601- 1,383 615 262 The issues for decision are: (1) Whether petitioner is liable for Federal income tax deficiencies for 2004-2006, (2) whe

solidated cases, respondent determined deficiencies, additions to tax, and accuracy-related penalties with respect to petitioner' s Federal income taxes as follows: saavao AEP 2 8 2011 - 2 - Accuracy- Addition to tax related penalty Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a) Sec. 6662(a) 2001 $33,566 $7,773 $6,713 2002 45,352 10,697 9,070 2003 94,168 . 22,896 18,834 . 2004 36,878 8,554 7,376 2005 18,217 4,099 -0- Respondent also determined a section 6651(a) (2)1 addition to tax for 2005.2 Petitioner timely pe

On September ll, 2006, respondent sent to Woodside Ranch a notice of deficiency setting forth respondent's determination of Woodside Ranch's $594,000.Federal income tax deficiency for 2002 plus an estimated tax-penalty under section 6654, delinquency additions to tax under section 6651(a) (2) and (3), and an * accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(b) (1).

Respondent also determined section 6651(a) (1) additions to tax of $1,310 and $1,938 for 1999 and 2000, respectively.

STATES TAX COURT ROBERT K. AND JOAN L. PASCHALL,- Petitioners v. COMMIS IONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket Nos. 1.0478-08, 25825-08.1 , Filed July 5, 2011. R determined sec. 4973, I.R.C., excise tax deficiencies and additions to tax under sec. 6651(a) (1), I.R.C., for Ps' 2002 through 2006 tax years. The determinations stem from R's assertion that P-H made excess contributions to his Roth individual r tirement account . Held: s are liable for the excise tax deficiencies and additions

The IRS also sent a notice of deficiency to "Shockley Communications Corporation" at the Washington, D.C., address reported on the 2001 Form 1120, determining a deficiency in tax of $41,566,515, a penalty under section 6662 of $8,313,303, and an addition to tax under section 6651(a) (1) of $2,078,276.

In order to avoid an addition to tax under section 6651(a), the taxpayer must carry the burden of establishing reasonable cause .

Section 6651(a),(1) provides that the late-filing addition to tax shall not be imposed if "it is shown that such failure (to . file] is due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect" . Reasonable cause is demonstrated if the . taxpayer "exercised ordinary business care and prudence and was nevertheless unable to file the return within the

dollar. SERVED Sep 20 2010 -2- this opinion shall not be treated as precedent for any other case. Respondent determined deficiencies and additions to tax with respect to petitioner's Federal income taxes as follows: Additions to Tax Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a) (1) Sec. 6651(a) (2) Sec. 6654 2005 $20,633 $4,642 $3,095 $828 2006 17,804 3,975 1,590 835 After concessions,2 the remaining issues for decision are whether petitioner is liable for additions to- tax under sections 6651(a) (1) and (2) and

2002, 2003, and 2004 Virgin Islands territorial income tax returns and on November 25, 2009, issued petitioner a notice of deficiency, determining the following Federal income tax deficiencies and additions to tax: Additions to Tax - Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a) (1) Sec. 6651(a) (2) Sec. 6654 2002 $283,555 $35,563.73 $39,515.25 $9,045.50 2003 789,518 147,943.58 164,381.75 20,370.53 2004 280,241 56,728.35 63,031.50 8,030.86 On April 1, 2010, petitioner filed a petition in this Court for redetermi

ption deductions that petitioner claimed for his two children; (2) disallowance of all of the expenses that petitioner claimed on his Schedule C, Profit or Loss From Business; (3) disallowance of the earned income tax credit that petitioner claimed, which he computed using his two children as qualifying dependents; and (4) an addition to tax under section 6651(a) (1) for late filing.

The parties subsequently stipulated that respondent conceded the car, and truck expenses for 2002 and 2005, the deficiencies in full for 2003, and 2004, the additions to tax under section 6651(a).(1) for .2003 and 2004, and the penalties under section 6662 for 2002 and 2005 .

Respondent has satisfied the burden-of production with .respect to the'additions to tax under section 6651(a)(1) and-( 2) .

6651(a) (1) 22122-05S 2002 $5,296 $1,059.20 -0- 2003 4,845 -0- $404.40 3462-06S 2004 8,505 1,701.00 -0- After concessions by both sides,2 the issues for decision are: 2Petitioner concedes he is not entitled to the education credits he claimed for 2002 and 2003. Both sides have made concessions regarding specific deductions on Schedule E, Suppl

Additions to Tax Under Section 6651(a) (1) Respondent determined that petitioner is liable for an addition to tax under section 6651(a) (1) for each tax year at issue.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION WELLS, Judge :, Respondent determined a deficiency of $6,32 3 in petitioner's Federal income tax for his 2003tax year , failure to file addition to tax pursuant to(cid:127)section 6651(a)(1) of $373, and a failure to pay addition to tax pursuant to section SERVED JUL -- 6 2010 2 - 6651 (a) (2) of $357 .1 Respondent concedes that petitioner is not liable for .the amounts set forth in the notice of deficiency and contends that the period-of limitations is cl

Addition to Tax Under Section 6651(a)(1 ) Respondent bears the burden of production with respect to the addition to tax .

- 3 - (6) whether petitioner is liable for the 10-percent additional tax under section 72(t) on the distribution of $3,328 frõm her individual-retirement plan;2 (7) whether petitioner is liable for the section 6651(a) (1) addition to tax for the failure to file a timely return;3 (8) whether petitioner is liable for the section 6651(a) (2) addition to tax for the failure to timely pay tax; and (9) whether petitioner is liable for the section 6654 addition to tax for the failure to pay estimated i

72010 - 2 - be entered is not reviewable by any other court, and this opinion shall not be treated as precedent for any other case. Respondent determined a $2,186 deficien y in petitioner's 2007 Federal income tax and a $19.20 addition to tax under section 6651(a) (1). Petitioner did not contest the addition to tax. The issues for decision are: (1) Whether petitioner is entitled to a dependency exemption deduction; (2) whether petitioner is entitled to the child tax credit; and (3) whether petit

Laszloffy, pro se. Erin K. Salel, for respondent . MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION VASQUEZ, Judge: Respondent determined the following deficiencies in and additions to petitioner's Federal income tax: - 2 - Additions to Tax Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a) (1) Sec. 6651(a) (2) Sec. 6654(a) 2004 $4 , 966 $1, 117 . 35 $1, 067 . 69 $142 . 29 2005 6,330 1,424.25 981.15 253.90 2006 4,477 1,007.33 425.32 211.85 The issues for decision are: (1) Whether petitioner received taxable income in 2004, 2

Failure To File Under Section 6651(a)(1 ) A taxpayer who fails to file a return is subject to an addition to tax in the amount of 5 percent of the tax for each month or fraction of a month during which the failure continues, not to exceed 25 percent in the aggregate .

6651(a) (1) 22122-05S 2002 $5,296 $1,059.20 -0- 2003 4,845 -0- $404.40 3462-06S 2004 8,505 1,701.00 -0- After concessions by both sides,2 the issues for decision are: 2Petitioner concedes he is not entitled to the education credits he claimed for 2002 and 2003. Both sides have made concessions regarding specific deductions on Schedule E, Suppl

gainst gambling income on Schedule C, Profit or Loss From Business, as business losses or whether those losses are deductible only on Schedule A, Itemized Deductions, as itemized deductions ; whether petitioners are liable for additions to tax under section 6651(a) for late filing of their 2004 Federal income tax return; and whether petitioners are liable for penalties under section 6662(a) with respect to their 2004 and 2005 returns .

Haim's representative supplied the Appeals officer with a copy of a letter Haim's accountant had previously submitted to the IRS on his behalf requesting abatement of an assessed addition to tax under section 6651(a), claiming reasonable cause.

Sommer limited her request to a refund of the section 6651(a) (2) and 6654 additions to tai.

Section 6651(a)(1 ) The notices of deficiency also reflect the determination of additions to tax under section 6651(a)(1) for Mr . Ulloa's failure to file his income tax returns when due . Section 6651(a) .(1) authorizes the imposition of an addition to tax for failure to file a timely return unless the taxpayer proves that such failure was due to

And in the later-issued 2000 notice of deficiency, the Commissioner asserted in the alternative a failure-to-pay penalty under section 6651(a) (2) against Carol (though he had specifically denied asserting the same penalty against Constantine).

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION WHERRY, Judge : This case is before the Court on a petition for redetermination of deficiency, an addition to tax under section 6651(a) (1)1 for a failure to file on time, and an accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a) that respondent determined for petitioner's 2003 tax year .

Addition to Tax Section 7491(c) imposes on the Commissioner the burden of production in any court proceeding with respect to the liability of any . individual for penalties and additions to tax . Higbee v . Commissioner, 116 T .C . 438, 446 (2001) ; :Trowbrid e Commissioner, T .C. Memo . 2003-164 . In order to meet the burden of

spondent. MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION COHEN, Judge:- Respondent determined deficiencies in petitioners' Federal income tax and addition*s to tax and penalties as follows: SERVED NOV - 1 2010 - 2 - Addition to Tax Penalty Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a) (1) Sec. 6662 2001 $84,482 $20,881.75 $16,896.40 2002 98,419 24,572.50 19,683.80 2003 105,143 21,861.75 21,028.60 2004 126,057 -0- 25,211.40 2005 52, 099 -0- 10, 419 . 80 Petitioner Mary Julia Hook (Hook) has entered into a settlement wit

section 6651(a)(2) for failure to pay tax . Further, at no time has petitioner denied that he failed to pay estimated tax for the years in issue, nor has he alleged that such failure was excused by any legitimate statutory exception. The frivolous and, groundless, nature of petitioner's pleadings suggest that he instituted, and is maintaining, the

6651(a) (1) Sec. 6654 2002 $119,751 $23,950.20 --- --- 2003 185,482 --- $46,370.50 $4,854.05 3At trial the Court reserved ruling on petitioner's objection to the admission of Exhibits 15-R, 16-R, 17-R, .18-R, 19-R and 20-R, including income tax returns and deficiency notices for the tax years at issue, on the grounds that they were not properl

Section 6651(a) (1) Failure to File The Code imposes an addition to tax if.a taxpayer fails to file on time, unless he can show that his failure was due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect. Sec. 6651(a) (1). Pace concedes he filed late and offers no evidence that the failure to file was due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect. We th

The issues for decision are (1) whether petitioners are liable for the , failure to pay addition to tax imposed by section 6651(a) (2); (2) whether respondent abused his discretion in not agreeing to an installment payment agreement or offer-in-compromise; and (3) whether respondent may proceed with collectiàn by means of a filed tax lien with respect to petitioners' Federal income tax.

Respondent determined for 2005 a deficiency of $36,349 in petitioner's Federal income tax, an addition to tax under section 6651(a) (1) of $9,087.25, and an addition to tax under section 6654(a) of.$1,458.01.

Late-Filing Penalty The IRS's burden of production for imposing the late-filing penalty of section 6651(a) (1) is satisfied by the undisputed fact that Igberaese filed his return several months late.

in income tax and additions to tax under section 6651(a)(1) :1 Addition to Tax Year Deficiency Sec .

OPINION GUSTAFSON, Judge : The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued to petitioner Shoukri Osman Saleh-Abdel-Fattah a notice of deficiency pursuant to section 6212,1 showing the IRS's determination of the following deficiencies,in income tax, additions to tax for failure to file under section 6651(a)(1), and accuracy-related penalties under section 6662 for tax years 2005, 2006, and 2007 : Addition to Tax Accuracy-Related Penalty Year Deficiency Sec .

Section 6651(a) (1) imposes an addition to tax for failure to timely file a return unless the taxpayer shows that his failure was due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect.. Section 6662 provides for a penalty of 20 percent of the underpayment attributable to negligence, disregard of rules or regulations, ær substantial understatement of inco

Additions to Tax Under Section 6651(a) (1) Respondent determined that petitioner is liable for an addition to tax under section 6651(a) (1) for each tax year at issue.

Haim's representative supplied the Appeals officer with a copy of a letter Haim's accountant had previously submitted to the IRS on his behalf requesting abatement of an assessed addition to tax under section 6651(a), claiming reasonable cause.

Section 6651(a),(1) provides that the late-filing addition to tax shall not be imposed if "it is shown that such failure (to . file] is due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect" . Reasonable cause is demonstrated if the . taxpayer "exercised ordinary business care and prudence and was nevertheless unable to file the return within the

3, and 2004 Virgin Islands income tax returns, on February 27, 2009, respondent issued petitioner a notice of deficiency determining the following Federal income tax deficiencies and additions to tax: Additions to tax Sec. Year Deficiency 6651(a)(1) Sec. 6651(a)(2) Sec. 6654 2002 $252,687 $55,431.45 $61,590.50 - 0 - 2003 88,350 18,586.35 20,651.50 $2,129.22 2004 77,938 17,271.68 17,271.68 2,196.05 Attached to the notice of deficiency was a Form 4549-A, Income Tax Discrepancy Adjustments, which s

Fourth Adjustment In the .case of HIE, which is an accrual basis taxpayer that we state infra is liable for the addition to tax fespondent determined under section 6651(a), the amount of that addition to - 311 - tax is accrued and deducted from HIE's taxable income to arrive at its E&P in the year in which the return to which the addition to tax relates was due to be filed.

Section 6651(a)(1) imposes an addition to tax for failure to file an income tax return by the due date . A taxpayer may be relieved of the addition, however, if he can demonstrate that the "failure is due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect" . Id . Section 6654(a) imposes an addition to tax for failure to pay estimated income tax . S

.) -2- deficiency of $13,600,,an addition to tax of $3,400 unde r section 6651(a)(1) for failure to file the return on time, and an accuracy-related penalty of $2,720 under section 6662 .

§ 6651(a)(1) and 6654(a) ." (Emphasis added.) We assume respondent's contention is as to .a notice of deficiency that determined deficiencies, and not a document proposing deficiencies, such as a so-called 30-day letter . - 20 - transcript for taxable year 2001", attached to Lee's declaration, is similar to the Form 4340 ; it also does not show an

t c - 14 - Section 6651(a)(2 ) Petitioner contends that the Court should order a refund of failure-to-pay penalties assessed in September 1999 after he filed his 1998 return in August 1999 .

Respondent has 1'-------`conceded the section 6651(a) (2) and 6654 additions to tax .

Section 6651(a)(1) provides that, in.

Respondent also determined that petitioner was liabl e for additions to tax under section 6651(a)(1) (failure to file a return) and section 6654(a) (failure to pay estimated tax) .

With respect to the addition to tax I II under section 6651(a) .(l), section 7491(c) places the burden of production on the Commissioner .

That notice, in addition to the aforementioned $4,119 deficiency in income tax, included additions to tax under section 6651(a)(1) (failure to file a return) and section 6654 (failure to pay estimated tax) .

Section 6651(a)(1 ) The first is the section 6651(a)(1) addition to tax for failure to timely file . The parties stipulated that Rodriguez failed to file timely returns for the tax years in question . Rodriguez explained at trial that his tardiness was due-to the death of his tax preparer--a death that also caused the permanent disappearance of man

Petitioner's Challenge to the Underlying Tax Liabilit Petitioner challenges respondent's refusal to waive th e additions to tax under section 6651(a)(2 for failure to pay tax shown on a return and under section 6654 (a) for failure to pay estimated Federal income tax .

which could be assessed without issuing a notice of deficiency (to wit, a section 6651(a) addition to tax for failure to file in a situation not involving a deficienc y determination), we considered the limitation imposed by section 6330(c)(2)(B) on a taxpayer's ability to raise challenges to the underlying tax liability in a collection proceeding after he had previously challenged those liabilities .

evidence that petitioner is liable for the section 6651(a)(1 ) addition to tax unless an exception applies .

he deficiencies and additions to tax . The additions to tax under section 6651(f) are the only amounts remaining at issue following the February 27, 2008, order . Regarding these additions to tax, a trial was held in Detroit, Michigan . Discussion - Section 6651(a). imposes additions to tax upon taxpayers wh o fail to file Federal income tax returns without reasonable caus e according to the net amount of tax due . Sec . 6651(b) . Section 6651(f) provides for an increased addition to tax when th

5Section 6651(c)(1) limits the section 6651(a)(1) failure- to-file addition to tax by subtracting the section 6651(a)(cid:127)(2) failure-to-pay addition (0 .5 percent), which is discussed below in part II .B .2, from the section 6651(a)(1) failure-to-file addition (5 .0 percent) for any month that additions to tax apply under both section 6651(a)(1) and (a) (2) .

The substitute for return prepared under sect-ion 6020(b) is disregarded for purposes'of section 6651(a)(1 ) but treated as a return for purposes of section 6651(a) .(2)' .

Petitioner failed to petition thi s Court, and on August 15, 2005, respondent assessed an income tax deficiency of $18,620, additions to tax under section 6651(a)(1 ) and (2) of $6,796 .30, an addition to tax under section 6654(a) of $622 .22, and interest for 2002 .

tax,.years at issue, and additions under :section 6651(a)(2) rfor.

- 3 - second"notice of deficiency dated March .23, 2005, respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner's Federal income tax for 2003 of $185,482, together with additions to tax under section 6651(a)(1) for failure to file and section 6,654(a) for failure to pay estimated tax .

Minns' motion presented tworarguments ._ First, Minns argued that the Court-should have cut off interest on .petitioners' deficiencies commencing in 1986 with the inception of'the fraud and not 1992, in accordance with respondent's concession, and should have handled the section 6651(a) late-filing addition differently .

The notice of deficiency determined a $16,081 deficiency in petitioners' Federal income tax, a $4,604 addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1), and a $3,216 .20 accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a)j.

119 MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION CHIECHI, Judge : Respondent determined the following defi- ciencies in, an addition under section 6651(a)(1)1 to, and accuracy-related penalties under section 6662'(a) on petitioners' Federal income tax (tax) : Addition to Tax Accuracy-Related Penalty Year Deficiency Under Sec .

reason for treating the section 6651(a) addition differently for the deficiency than there was for the amount reported.

Section 6651(a)(2 ) Respondent also determined that petitioner was liable for the addition to tax imposed by-section 6651(a)(2) for failure to pay the amounts of tax shown on his returns for 1992, 1993, and 1994.5 ;Section 6651(a)(2) provides for an addition to tax of 0 .5 percent per month up - to,j 25 percent-for failure- to pay the amount shown

Section 6651(a) Additions to Tax Not Limited to Amounts Listed in 1987 Notice of Deficiency On brief petitioners assert that section"6212(c) prohibits respondent from determining additions to tax that exceed those determined .in the 1987 notice of deficiency, as to which they filed a petition that the Court eventually dismissed for lack of jurisdic

Section 6651(a)(1) imposes an addition to tax for failure to file an income tax return by the due date . A taxpayer may be relieved of the addition, however, if he can demonstrate that the "failure is due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect" . Id . Section 6654(a) imposes an addition to tax for failure to pay estimated income tax . S

Petitioners also argue that because the IRS abated additions to tax that had been assessed at the time the return was filed, the remaining addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1) should also be abated because there is no logical or legal reason for treating the section 6651(a) addition differently for the deficiency than there was for the amount reported on the late-filed return.

CLARISSA C. POTTER Acting Chief Counsel Internal Revenue Service .B PHILLIP H . HAMILTON ES A. KUTTEN Farrell, Hamilton & Julian, P .C. nior Attorney Counsel for Petitioner mall Business/Self-Employed) Tax Court Bar No . HP0256 Tax Court Bar No . KJO541 1305 D'Adrian Professional Park Room 6 .301A Godfrey, IL; 62035 1222 Spruce St .

Respondent determined the failure to timely file addition to,tax under section 6651(a) (1)_ against petitioner for 2002 and against petitioner and his wife for 2003 .

On March 17, 2008, petitioners discussed with respondent the delinquency additions to tax under section 6651(a)(1) which were not conceded in respondent's pretrial memorandum .

On May 27, 2002, respondent assessed the tax reported, interest,Wand an addition to tax under section 6651(a)(2') for failure to pay the amount shown on the return .

-4- Standard deduction ($4,550 ) Exemptions (2,900 ) Wages--W2--Employee Management Concepts 25,913 Wages--W2--Elite Leasing Group LLC Unemployment compensation - Michigan 8,274 Empl Sec Comm 1,80 0 Total 28,537 The notice of deficiency also determined additions to tax under section 6651(a)(1) of $1,040 .75, and under section 6654 of $166 .37 .

In a notice and demand for payment issued on November 24, 2003, respondent determined that petitioner was liable for the self-reported underpayment and section 6651(a)(1) and (2)1 additions to tax bringing his total outstanding liability to $58,929 .

- 8 - Section 6651(a) 'imposes additions to ,tax for failure to file a return and failure to pay the .amount shown as-tax on a-return . Petitioner's-only explanation' of.,his failure to file a return for 2002 is that he did not want to sign-a return saying that he was an independent contractor . He has no?reasonable cause, however,, for failing to file a

mpsons were liable for deficiencies totaling $79,293 for the taxable years 1979-81, for additions to tax for negligence for 1979 and 1981, for increased interest for 1981 pursuant to sec. 6621(d), and for a late filing addition to tax for 1981 under sec. 6651(a). The deficiencies, negligence additions, and increased interest were attributable to the Thompsons' participation in Kersting tax shelter programs. "Sec. 6621(d) was redesignated sec. 6621(c) by the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (TRA), Pub. L.

Thus, respondent has met his burden of production with respect to the additions to tax under section 6651(a)(2) .

Skolnick were liable for a $3,000 addition to tax under section 6651(a)(2), plus interest .

With respect to petitioner's 2002 tax year, respondent determined a deficiency of $851 and an addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1) of $276 .58 .5 With respect to petitioner's 2003 tax year, respondent determined a deficiency of $8,998 and additions to tax under section 6651(a)'(l) and (2) of $2,024 .55 and $494 .89,respectively, together with an addition to tax under section 6654(a) of $232 .18 .

Additions and Penalties The only remaining issues are whether Green owes the addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1) for failure to timely file a tax return, and the penalty under section 6654 for failure to pay estimated tax .

On April 17, 2006,'respondent assessed the total tax shown in petitioner's 2001 return, additions to tax under section 6651(a)(1) and (2) of $3,003 .97 and $3,270,99, respectively, and interest as provided by law of $3,938 .72 for his taxable year 2001 .

For the reasons stated, we shall grant respondent's motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the tax deficiency for each year, and the tax deficiency sustained for each year satisfies respondent's burden of production under section 7491(c) with regard to the section 6651(a)(1) and (2) additions to tax and the 4 - section 6654 addition to tax .

Accuracy-Related Penalty and Addition to Tax for Late Filing As a final comment we note that respondent determined that for each year at issue, 2002, 2003, and 2004, petitioners are liable for an accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a) and an addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1) for late filing .

Accordingly, we sustain the section 6651(a)(1 ) addition to tax as determined .

The parties have agreed to the amounts shown on those returns and the resulting income tax deficiencies and additions to tax under section 6651(a)(1), along with related computational matters .

g that petitioners owed : (1) Deficiencies in income taxes for the taxable years 1992, 1993, and 1994 in the amounts of $123,063, $161,648, and $8,346, respectively ; (2) additions to tax for the taxable years 1992 and 1993, under the provisions of section 6651(a)(1) in the amounts of $30,979 and $40,579, respectively; and (3) penalties for the taxable years 1992, 1993, and 1994 under the provisions of section 6662 in the amounts of $24,613, $32,330, and $1,669, respectively .

er the $18,312 in distributions that petitioner received from Wescom Credit Union is includable in his taxable income ; .(4) whether petitioner is liable,-for the 10-percent additional tax under section 72(t) ; (5) whether petitioner is liable under section 6651(a)(1 ) for a $3,161 .75 addition to tax ; and 'All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended an in effect for the tax year at issue .

To reflect the foregoing, Decision will be entered for respondent as to the deficiency and the section 6651(a) addition to tax and for petitioner as to the additions to tax under sections 6651(a)(2) and 6654(a) .

for the tax year 1987, additions to tax under section 6653(a)(1)(B) for the tax year 1987, and additions to tax - 6 - for negligence or disregard of rules and regulations under section 6653(a)(1) for the tax year 1988 ; (2) an accuracy-related penalty pursuant to section 6662 for the tax year 1990 ; (3) an addition to tax for failure to pay under section 6651(a)(2) for the tax year 19941 ; and (4) a penalty for fraudulent failure to file for the tax year 1994 under section 6651(f) .

addition to tax under, section 6651 (,a) (1) , (3) $477 .87 of the addition to<tax:under section 6651(a),(2), and (4) $475,55 of .interest as provided by law .

The issues for decision for each year are : (1) Whether petitioner is entitled to all or a portion of a deduction for employee business expenses claimed on his Federal income tax return received by respondent after the notice of deficiency was issued; and (2) whether petitioner is liable for the section 6651(a) additions to .

mpsons were liable for deficiencies totaling $79,293 for the taxable years 1979-81, for additions to tax for negligence for 1979 and 1981, for increased interest for 1981 pursuant to sec. 6621(d), and for a late filing addition to tax for 1981 under sec. 6651(a). The deficiencies, negligence additions, and increased interest were attributable to the Thompsons’ participation in Kersting tax shelter programs. 14Sec. 6621(d) was redesignated sec. 6621(c) by the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (TRA), Pub. L.

Petitioner has at no time offered any evidence or argument directed to the additions to t x under section 6651(a) or 6654 .

The issues for decision for each year are : (1) Whether petitioner is entitled to all or a portion of a deduction for employee business expenses claimed on his Federal income tax return received by respondent after the notice of deficiency was issued; and (2) whether petitioner is liable for the section 6651(a) additions to .

ed in the criminal case. Based thereon, respondent’s notice of deficiency to petitioners determined a deficiency in petitioners’ 1995 Federal income tax, an addition to tax, and penalties as follows: - 3 - Additions to Tax/Penalties Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a)(1) Penalties Penalties 1995 $74,664 $11,199 $14,932 $55,998 On July 8, 2003, petitioners filed their petition in which they disputed the income adjustment, the tax deficiency, the addition to the tax, and the penalties. This case was set

mpsons were liable for deficiencies totaling $79,293 for the taxable years 1979-81, for additions to tax for negligence for 1979 and 1981, for increased interest for 1981 pursuant to sec. 6621(d), and for a late filing addition to tax for 1981 under sec. 6651(a). The deficiencies, negligence additions, and increased interest were attributable to the Thompsons’ participation in Kersting tax shelter programs. 14Sec. 6621(d) was redesignated sec. 6621(c) by the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (TRA), Pub. L.

mpsons were liable for deficiencies totaling $79,293 for the taxable years 1979-81, for additions to tax for negligence for 1979 and 1981, for increased interest for 1981 pursuant to sec. 6621(d), and for a late filing addition to tax for 1981 under sec. 6651(a). The deficiencies, negligence additions, and increased interest were attributable to the Thompsons’ participation in Kersting tax shelter programs. 14Sec. 6621(d) was redesignated sec. 6621(c) by the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (TRA), Pub. L.

abatement of “interest and penalties”. We do not have jurisdiction to review failures to abate penalties. Woodral v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 19, 21 n.4 (1999). We also do not have jurisdiction to review failures to abate additions to tax, such as the sec. 6651(a) amounts that have been assessed in the instant case. Krugman v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 230, 237 (1999). Petitioner does not explicitly claim an overpayment in his petition. However, the parties agree that petitioner paid his 2000 tax obl

On March 17, 2008, petitioners discussed with respondent the delinquency additions to tax under section 6651(a)(1) which were not conceded in respondent's pretrial memorandum .

On March 17, 2008, petitioners discussed with respondent the delinquency additions to tax under section 6651(a)(1) which were not conceded in respondent's pretrial memorandum .

- 20 - To reflect the foregoing and respondent's concession, An order granting respondent's motion and decision will be entered for respondent as to the deficiency and for petitioner as to the addi- tion to tax under section 6651(a)(1) .

The Court also has the authority under Rule 104(c)(3) to enter a judgment by default for respon- dent with respect to the addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1) determined for that year .

On March 17, 2008, petitioners discussed with respondent the delinquency additions to tax under section 6651(a)(1) which were not conceded in respondent's pretrial memorandum .

On March 17, 2008, petitioners discussed with respondent the delinquency additions to tax under section 6651(a)(1) which were not conceded in respondent's pretrial memorandum .

Section 6651(a)(1) and (2) and Section 6654 Additions to Tax Miguel makes no specific arguments contesting the above additions to tax, and we sustain each of them . See Funk v. Commissioner, 123 T .C . 213, 217-218 (2004) . Decisions will be entered under Rule 155 .

mpsons were liable for deficiencies totaling $79,293 for the taxable years 1979-81, for additions to tax for negligence for 1979 and 1981, for increased interest for 1981 pursuant to sec. 6621(d), and for a late filing addition to tax for 1981 under sec. 6651(a). The deficiencies, negligence additions, and increased interest were attributable to the Thompsons’ participation in Kersting tax shelter programs. 14Sec. 6621(d) was redesignated sec. 6621(c) by the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (TRA), Pub. L.

Respondent determined the failure to timely file addition to,tax under section 6651(a) (1)_ against petitioner for 2002 and against petitioner and his wife for 2003 .

Section 6651(a)(1) and (2) and Section 6654 Additions to Tax Miguel makes no specific arguments contesting the above additions to tax, and we sustain each of them . See Funk v. Commissioner, 123 T .C . 213, 217-218 (2004) . Decisions will be entered under Rule 155 .

The Estate of Leonard Rosen, deceased (estate), Bernice Siegel, special administrator, petitioned the Court to redetermine respondent’s determination of a $39,956 deficiency in Federal estate tax and a $28,968 addition thereto under section 6651(f) (or alternatively section 6651(a)(1)).

Gener lly, the amount of the addition to tax under section 6651(a) 1) is reduced by the amount of any addition to tax imposed and r section 6651(a)(2) (which relates to failure to pay the tax sho n on a return by the prescribed date) with respect to eachimonth in which both are otherwise applicable .

2002 and 20~3 petitioner is liable for the civil fraud penalty under s ction 6663 or, in the alternative, the accuracy- related penalty under section 6662(a) ; and (3) whether for 2002 petitioner is 1 able for the late-filing addition to tax under section 6651(a) 1) . 3 2 Responden 's apparent motivation for asserting fraud was prompted by thi Court's holding in Prowse v . Commissioner, T .C . Memo . 2006-120, that petitioner was liable for the sec. 6663(a) fraud penalty f r the year 2001 . Sec

"Morever, it is well established that an * * * [agent's] failure to prepare and file a return does not itself constitute reasonable cause for failure to file within the meaning of section 6651(a) ." Bradley v .

She offered no reasonable cause that would avoid the addition to tax under section 6651(a) for late filing of the return .

Addition to Tax Under Section 6651(a)(1 ) The parties agree that petitioner did not file a Federal tax return for 2002 .

Addition to Tax Under Section 6651(a)(1 ) If a tax return is not timely filed, an addition to tax will be assessed "unless it is shown that such failure is due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect" .

Respondent determined a $3,553 deficiency in petitioner's 2002 Federal income tax and a section 6651(a) addition to tax for failure to file timely a Form 1040-SS, U .S .

Additions to Tax Under Section 6651(a)(1 ) Section 7491(c) imposes the burden of production in any court proceeding on the Commissioner with respect to the liability of any individual for penalties and additions to tax .

Addition to Tax Under Section 6651(a)(1 ) If a tax return is not timely filed, an addition to tax will be assessed "unless it is shown that such failure is due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect" .

Addition to Tax Under Section 6651(a)(1 ) If a Federal income tax return is not timely filed, an addition to tax will be assessed "unless it is shown that such failure is due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect" .

-- 1982 55,338 -- 2,766.90 -- $8,744.00 -- 1984 981,072 1$51,331 88,788.05 -- 245,268.00 -- 1987 208,449 -- 10,442.45 -- 52,112.25 -- 1988 125,136 -- 6,257.00 -- -- -- 1989 179,924 -- -- -- -- $35,985 1 Respondent conceded the addition to tax under sec. 6651(a)(1) for the taxable year 1984. -20- Estate of Robert W. Lisle, Deceased, Thomas W. Lisle and Amy L. Albrecht, Independent Co-executors, and Estate of Donna M. Lisle, Deceased, Thomas W. Lisle and Amy L. Albrecht, Independent Co- Executors

Section 6651(a) (1) Additions Section 6651(a)(1) provides for an addition to tax for a taxpayer's failure to file a required return on or before the due date, including extensions. Respondent determined that Mrs. Callahan is liable for section 6651(a)(1) additions for 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2002 and determined that Mr. Callahan is liable for section

Section 6651(a)(1 ) Respondent determined that petitioner is liable for additions to tax under section 6651(a)(1) for the years at issue . Section 6651(a)(1) imposes an addition to tax for failure to file a return on the date prescribed (determined with regard to any extension of time for filing), unless the taxpayer can establish that such failure

s claim that he owed no taxes for 2004 and thus the amount of the refund due him for tax year 2005, should have been applied entirely to tax year`1999 . 5As explained supra note 3, we do not review respondent's imposition of an addition to tax under sec. 6651(a)(2) and (3) .for failure to pay income tax when it is due . In the light of our holding that respondent erred as a matter of law in pursuing the levy action, the standard of review that we would employ in evaluating the issue of petitione

On March 14, 1995, the Court entered a stipulated decision that the Scotts were liable for a $3,176 deficiency in income tax attributable to the disallowance of the $16,360 of expenses claimed for the Karnival Klassics activity, an addition to tax of $795 under section 6651(a), and a penalty of $635 under section 6662(a).

Additions to Tax Under Section 6651(a) Respondent bears the burden of production with respect to any addition to tax.

Rules of Practice and Procedure . Unless otherwise indicated, section references are to the applicable versions of the Internal Revenue Code . j VD JAN-32001 -2- deficiency in their 2000 Federal income tax and an addition to tax of $5,197 .70 under section 6651(a) . After concessions by respondent, we are left to decide the date on which to value stock transferred to Edward Walter (petitioner) through his exercise of stock options . Respondent argues that the appropriate valuation date is July 1

ichael L. Steward (hereinafter the workers) were employees of petitioner during 2000 and 2001; and 2Petitioner does not directly address respondent’s revised adjustments regarding the sec. 6662 accuracy-related penalty or the additions to tax under sec. 6651(a) in its briefs. Therefore, we will deem petitioner to have conceded these adjustments if we conclude that respondent’s determination regarding the classification of the workers is sustained. See Rule 151(e)(4) and (5); Petzoldt v. Commissi

If the taxpayer assigns error to the Commissioner’s determination that the taxpayer is liable for the addition to tax, the Commissioner has the burden, under section 7491(c), of producing evidence to show that the section 6651(a) addition to tax applies.

200, 208 (2006) ("The Paperwork Reduction Act is not a defense to the addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1), nor does it create a loophole in the Code") ; Aldrich v .

2002-164, on March 7, 2003, the Court entered a decision holding petitioner liable for a deficiency in Federal income tax of $34,763, as well as an addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1) and an accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a) of $8,691 and $6,953, respectively, for 1991 .

Respondent denies making such a concession and insists that imposition of - 21 - 913 (1989) (section 6651(a) addition to tax upheld where taxpayers failed to show what records were needed or what actions they took to obtain such records) .

.) - 3 - On June 4, 2001, respondent assessed the tax reported on petitioner's 2000 tax return as well as statutory interest and a section 6651(a)(2) addition to tax .

Addition t Tax Under Section 6651(a)(1 ) Section 6651(a)(1) imposes an addition to tax for failure to file a return w en due "unless it is shown that such failure is due to reasonab e cause and not due to willful neglect" .

Addition to Tax Under Section 6651(a)(1 ) Once the Commissioner meets his burden of production regarding the addition to tax, the burden of proof remains on the taxpayer, who must prove that the failure to file was : (1) Due - 11 - to reasonable cause and ( 2) not due to willful neglect .

iencies in and penalties and additions to tax with respect to petitioner’s Federal income taxes for 2000, 2001, and 2002 (docket Nos. 19719-04, 386-05, and 5557-05, respectively), as follows: - 2 - Additions to Tax/Penalties, I.R.C. Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a)(1) Sec. 6654 Sec. 6662(a) 2000 $147,076 - - $29,415.20 2001 341,684 $85,431 $13,654.96 - 2002 345,892 85,223 11,373.05 - Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue,

-- 1982 55,338 -- 2,766.90 -- $8,744.00 -- 1984 981,072 1$51,331 88,788.05 -- 245,268.00 -- 1987 208,449 -- 10,442.45 -- 52,112.25 -- 1988 125,136 -- 6,257.00 -- -- -- 1989 179,924 -- -- -- -- $35,985 1 Respondent conceded the addition to tax under sec. 6651(a)(1) for the taxable year 1984. -20- Estate of Robert W. Lisle, Deceased, Thomas W. Lisle and Amy L. Albrecht, Independent Co-executors, and Estate of Donna M. Lisle, Deceased, Thomas W. Lisle and Amy L. Albrecht, Independent Co- Executors

Respondent determined the following deficiencies in Federal income tax, additions to tax under section 6651(a)(1) for failure to timely file returns, and penalties under section 6663 for civil tax fraud : Year Tax Additions to tax Penalties Sec .

refused to answer any questions or produce any records to respondent. 5The record does not reflect the dates petitioners filed the tax returns. We note that respondent did not determine that either petitioner was liable for the addition to tax under sec. 6651(a)(1) for failure to file timely returns for the years at issue. -8- Respondent’s Determination of Petitioners’ Income Respondent’s revenue agents determined petitioners’ income. A different revenue agent was assigned to each petitioner. Re

. Accordingly, respondent determined an addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1) of $23,674 .83 in the notice of deficiency. We find that respondent satisfied his burdens of production under section 7491(c) with respect to the addition to tax under section 6651(a) . See Higbee v . Commissioner , 116 T .C . 438, 446-447 (2001) . Petitioners argue that they are not liable for the addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1) because their failure to file a timely return for 1999 was due to reasonable

-- 1982 55,338 -- 2,766.90 -- $8,744.00 -- 1984 981,072 1$51,331 88,788.05 -- 245,268.00 -- 1987 208,449 -- 10,442.45 -- 52,112.25 -- 1988 125,136 -- 6,257.00 -- -- -- 1989 179,924 -- -- -- -- $35,985 1 Respondent conceded the addition to tax under sec. 6651(a)(1) for the taxable year 1984. -20- Estate of Robert W. Lisle, Deceased, Thomas W. Lisle and Amy L. Albrecht, Independent Co-executors, and Estate of Donna M. Lisle, Deceased, Thomas W. Lisle and Amy L. Albrecht, Independent Co- Executors

Section 6651(a)(1 ) Section 6651(a)(1) provides for an addition to tax in the event a taxpayer fails to file a timely return (determined with regard to any extension of time for filing), unless it is shown - 11 - that such failure is due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect . The amount of the addition is equal to 5 percent of the am

-- 1982 55,338 -- 2,766.90 -- $8,744.00 -- 1984 981,072 1$51,331 88,788.05 -- 245,268.00 -- 1987 208,449 -- 10,442.45 -- 52,112.25 -- 1988 125,136 -- 6,257.00 -- -- -- 1989 179,924 -- -- -- -- $35,985 1 Respondent conceded the addition to tax under sec. 6651(a)(1) for the taxable year 1984. -20- Estate of Robert W. Lisle, Deceased, Thomas W. Lisle and Amy L. Albrecht, Independent Co-executors, and Estate of Donna M. Lisle, Deceased, Thomas W. Lisle and Amy L. Albrecht, Independent Co- Executors

-- 1982 55,338 -- 2,766.90 -- $8,744.00 -- 1984 981,072 1$51,331 88,788.05 -- 245,268.00 -- 1987 208,449 -- 10,442.45 -- 52,112.25 -- 1988 125,136 -- 6,257.00 -- -- -- 1989 179,924 -- -- -- -- $35,985 1 Respondent conceded the addition to tax under sec. 6651(a)(1) for the taxable year 1984. -20- Estate of Robert W. Lisle, Deceased, Thomas W. Lisle and Amy L. Albrecht, Independent Co-executors, and Estate of Donna M. Lisle, Deceased, Thomas W. Lisle and Amy L. Albrecht, Independent Co- Executors

Respondent prepared a statutory notice of deficiency dated July 22, 1997, for issuance to petitioner and her spouse for 1990, reflecting a deficiency of $3,204 and additions to tax under section 6651(a)(1) and (2) and an accuracy-related penalty under section 6662.

ry 14, 2005, petitioner petitioned the Court to redetermine respondent's determination of deficiencies of $68,990 and $46,465 .20 in its Federal income taxes for its taxable years ended October 31, 1998 and 1999, respectively, additions to tax under section 6651(a)(1) of $10,285 .55 and $11,548 .25, respectively, and accuracy-related penalties under section 6662(a) of $13,798 and $9,293 .04, respectively .' Respondent now moves the Court to dismiss this case to the extent it relates to deficienc