United Circuits, Inc. - Page 12

                                       - 12 -                                         
          taxpayer believed in good faith that he was relying on the advice           
          of a competent return preparer.  Metra Chem Corp. v.                        
          Commissioner, supra.                                                        
               Petitioner relies on section 1.6664-4(b)(2), Example (l),              
          Income Tax Regs., to establish good faith reliance:                         
               A, an individual calendar year taxpayer, engages B, a                  
               tax professional, to give him advice concerning the                    
               deductibility of certain state and local taxes.  A                     
               provides B with full details concerning the taxes at                   
               issue.  B advises A that the taxes are fully                           
               deductible.  A, in preparing his own tax return, claims                
               a deduction for the taxes.  Under these facts, A is                    
               considered to have demonstrated good faith by seeking                  
               the advice of a tax professional, and to have shown                    
               reasonable cause for any underpayment attributable to                  
               the deduction claimed for the taxes.  However, if A had                
               sought advice from someone that he knew, or should have                
               known, lacked knowledge in federal income taxation, A                  
               would not be considered to have shown reasonable cause                 
               or to have acted in good faith.                                        
               Petitioner argues that it is not liable for the penalty                
          because the facts in the instant case are the same as the facts             
          in the example.  Petitioner's argument, however, is contradicted            
          by the evidence.  Jump did not provide Northcutt with full                  
          details or complete and accurate information concerning the                 
          transactions in issue.  Northcutt testified that she did not see            
          the agreements for the equipment acquisitions entered into by               
          UCI.                                                                        
               In addition, Jump relied on Northcutt for “accounting”                 
          advice rather than for “tax” advice.  Jump testified:                       
                    Q  In giving it [the question about the leases] to                
               her, did you anticipate she would render tax advice?                   





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011