C. Richard Roose, Jr. and Betty B. Roose - Page 12

                                       - 12 -                                         
          information from which to prepare the returns.  See Morris v.               
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-635, affd. without published                  
          opinion 15 F.3d 1079 (5th Cir. 1994); Merlo v. Commissioner, T.C.           
          Memo. 1987-570.  In this case, petitioners' alleged reliance on             
          Reed does not excuse them from the fraud addition to tax.                   
               Petitioners hired Reed to prepare their personal income tax            
          returns and the store's employment tax returns.  Petitioners did            
          not intend for Reed to determine their gross receipts or their              
          expenses or to audit the store's books, as indicated by the                 
          amount that petitioners paid Reed and Mr. Roose's testimony at              
          trial.  Although petitioners contend that they did not have time            
          to review their returns before they were filed, Mr. Roose's                 
          testimony at trial suggested that this pattern did not change               
          even after he was indicted for tax fraud.  No evidence has been             
          presented to indicate that petitioners' returns did not                     
          accurately reflect the information petitioners provided to Reed.            
          Because of petitioners' intentional failure to report credit card           
          sales receipts, coupon redemption receipts, and certain special             
          deposits and due to no fault of his own, Reed was without the               
          information necessary to reflect accurately petitioners' income             
          on their tax returns for the years in issue.                                
               This case is comparable to Estate of Temple v. Commissioner,           
          67 T.C. 143 (1976).  We incorporate the same analysis here.  The            
          Court's statements in Estate of Temple, may be adapted to this              
          case as follows:                                                            

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

Last modified: May 25, 2011