Opinion ID: 8114
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the negligence penalty

Text: 16 The Tax Court's determination that taxpayers failed to meet their burden of proving that they were not liable for the addition to tax involves a question of fact, which we review for clear error. 11 As such determinations by the IRS enjoy a presumption of correctness, the party complaining of the finding bears the burden of persuasion that the determination is erroneous. 12 17 The IRS imposed an addition to tax for negligence under Section 6653(a)(1) of the IRC. 13 For the purposes of Section 6653(a), negligence is any failure to reasonably attempt to comply with the tax code. 14 In this case, the additions to tax for negligence arose from the Bilskis' claim of a loss associated with their investment in PSL. 15 The Tax Court affirmed the additions to tax after the Bilskis failed to present any evidence to demonstrate reasonable attempts to comply. The Bilskis conceded that [w]e have presented no evidence to refute the disallowance of the tax deduction, because we have no records available to us with which to do that. Additionally, the Tax Court observed that Stanley Bilski did not testify regarding his actions in investing in PSL Enterprises, Limited. Given the deference with which we review the Tax Court's decision, and the Bilskis' wholesale evidentiary default, we are unable to identify any error--clear or otherwise. 18 For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Tax Court is, in all respects, 19 AFFIRMED.