- 14 -
tax adviser and supplies him with all relevant information, it is
consistent with ordinary business care and prudence to rely upon
his professional judgment as to the taxpayer’s tax obligations.
United States v. Boyle, supra at 250-251; Commissioner v.
American Assocation of Engrs. Employment, Inc., 204 F.2d 19
(7th Cir. 1953); Haywood Lumber & Mining Co. v. Commissioner,
178 F.2d 769, 771 (2d Cir. 1950). In order to qualify for this
exception the taxpayer must demonstrate that: (1) Its tax adviser
or return preparer had sufficient expertise to justify reliance,
Zabolotny v. Commissioner, 97 T.C. 385, 401-402 (1991), affd. in
part and revd. in part on other grounds 7 F.3d 774 (8th Cir.
1993); cf. Patin v. Commissioner, 88 T.C. 1086, 1129-1131 (1987),
affd. sub nom. Gomberg v. Commissioner, 868 F.2d 865 (6th Cir.
1989), affd. without published opinion 865 F.2d 1264 (5th Cir.
1989), affd. sub nom. Skeen v. Commissioner, 864 F.2d 93 (9th
Cir. 1989), affd. without published opinion sub nom. Hatheway v.
Commissioner, 856 F.2d 186 (4th Cir. 1988); Hoffman v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1982-380, (2) the taxpayer provided
necessary and accurate information, Coldwater Seafood Corp. v.
Commissioner, 69 T.C. 966, 974 (1978); cf. Pessin v.
Commissioner, 59 T.C. 473, 489 (1972), and (3) the taxpayer
actually relied in good faith on the tax adviser’s or return
preparer’s judgment, New York State Association. of Real Estate
Bds. Group Ins. Fund v. Commissioner, 54 T.C. 1325, 1336 (1970);
Kenner v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1974-273.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011