- 10 -10
the taxpayer's agent may sign. See sec. 1.6081-1(b)(1), Income
Tax Regs.
Petitioner reasons that underlying the holding in United
States v. Boyle, supra, is a policy to impose the addition to tax
only where the taxpayer is actively involved in the process of
filing. Because the regulations sanction delegation of the act
of signing the extension request, petitioner concludes that they
must also sanction delegation of the duty to file it.8
Petitioner's argument is not persuasive. An agent's failure
to file an extension request is tantamount to an agent's failure
to file a return. See Fleming v. United States, supra at 1127;
cf. est, An Educational Corp. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1986-
527.9 It would be anomalous to excuse a late return where the
taxpayer asked his agent to file an extension request but not
excuse a late return where the taxpayer asked his agent to file a
return. See Twin City Constr. Co. v. United States, 515 F. Supp.
767, 770 (D.N.D. 1981). Thus, we reject petitioner's argument.
Petitioner also argues that reasonable cause should be found
8This argument was considered and rejected in Twin City
Constr. Co. v. United States, 515 F. Supp. 767, 770 (D.N.D.
1981). See also Fleming v. United States, 648 F.2d 1122 (7th
Cir. 1981).
9We note that United States v. Boyle, 469 U.S. 241 (1985),
has been applied where taxpayers have relied on agents to file
extensions. See Bergersen v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-424;
Scimeca v. United States, 735 F. Supp. 300 (N.D. Ill. 1990);
Estate of Cox v. United States, 637 F. Supp. 1112 (S.D. Fla.
1986).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011