- 11 -
relevance to the income tax liability for the accrued interest on
the bonds. The Court, therefore, rejects that argument.
Petitioner also contends he relied on the representation of
an Appeals officer of the IRS in the form of a letter he received
in connection with the 2001 income tax return he prepared for his
mother that was rejected by the IRS. It is apparent from the
letter that the Appeals officer who signed the letter was not
knowledgeable about the facts surrounding the bonds. Moreover,
even if the letter is authoritative, the information in that
letter clearly does not account for and take into consideration
all the facts of this case. The law is well settled that the IRS
is not bound by erroneous advice of its agents or employees.
Bornstein v. United States, 170 Ct. Cl. 576, 345 F.2d 558 (1965).
Respondent, therefore, is sustained on this issue.
Reviewed and adopted as the report of the Small Tax Case
Division. To account for treatment of petitioner’s payment of
$11,598 that accompanied the 2001 income tax return on behalf of
petitioner’s mother that was not returned to petitioner,
Decision will be entered
under Rule 155.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Last modified: May 25, 2011