- 11 -11
in this case because he was told by Mr. Russell that the
extension request had been filed. While a taxpayer may establish
reasonable cause by demonstrating that he relied on the tax
advice of an expert, reliance on an agent to file a return does
not establish reasonable cause. United States v. Boyle, supra at
250; Estate of La Meres v. Commissioner, supra at 315; Zabolotny
v. Commissioner, supra at 400. The Supreme Court provided the
following rationale for distinguishing between relying on an
agent's expert advice and relying on an agent to file a return:
When an accountant or attorney advises a taxpayer
on a matter of tax law, such as whether a liability
exists, it is reasonable for the taxpayer to rely on
that advice. Most taxpayers are not competent to
discern error in the substantive advice of an
accountant or attorney. To require the taxpayer to
challenge the attorney, to seek a "second opinion," or
to try to monitor counsel on the provisions of the Code
himself would nullify the very purpose of seeking the
advice of a presumed expert in the first place. * * *
By contrast, one does not have to be a tax expert to
know that tax returns have fixed filing dates and that taxes
must be paid when they are due. In short, tax returns imply
deadlines. Reliance by a lay person on a lawyer is of
course common; but that reliance cannot function as a
substitute for compliance with an unambiguous statute.
* * * [United States v. Boyle, supra at 251.]
In the present case Mr. Russell did not render an opinion on
a matter of tax law. Petitioner did not need to conduct any
research to ensure the extension request was filed before the
deadline. He knew that August 15, 1983, was the deadline to
either file the return or obtain an extension. He also knew that
the second extension request had to be approved by the Service.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011