- 35 -
Petitioner, who himself was a longtime expert in
structuring leasing transactions, and who relied on the
many professionals associated with the transactions,
including but not limited to * * * [certain] major New
York law firms * * * and independent tax counsel (who
either negotiated, reviewed or drafted the documents in
issue and advised Petitioner) believed that he would be
"at risk" with respect to the Notes he signed in the
transactions. * * *
As a general rule, the duty of filing accurate returns
cannot be avoided by placing responsibility on a tax return
preparer or other expert. See, e.g., Metra Chem Corp. v.
Commissioner, 88 T.C. 654, 662 (1987). Nevertheless, this Court
has declined to sustain additions to tax under section 6653(a) in
cases in which the taxpayer relied in good faith on the advice of
a tax expert. See, e.g., Woodbury v. Commissioner, 49 T.C. 180,
199 (1967); Brown v. Commissioner, 47 T.C. 399, 410 (1967), affd.
per curiam 398 F.2d 832 (6th Cir. 1968); Donlon I Dev. Corp. v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-374. However, a close examination
of these cases reveals that they raised questions as to the tax
treatment of complex transactions and that the position taken on
the returns with respect to such items had a reasonable basis.
We do not believe that petitioners have satisfied those
criteria. Petitioner is a self-proclaimed expert in structuring
leasing transactions. Therefore, for him, the activities in
question were not complex. Moreover, petitioners have not
carried their burden of showing that petitioner relied on expert
opinion that the at-risk positions in question had a reasonable
basis in law. Petitioner testified that he consulted with
Page: Previous 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011