- 9 -
In United States v. Boyle, supra, the Supreme Court
suggested that a taxpayer's reliance on professional advice that
there is no obligation to file would generally establish
reasonable cause for purposes of section 6651. Id. at 250-251.
On the other hand, the Court affirmed that the orderly operation
of our system of self-assessment depends on strict compliance
with known filing obligations. Id. at 249. Leuschner did not
advise petitioner that he need not file a return. Petitioner is
a sophisticated businessman. He exercises responsibility for the
tax compliance of partnerships and S corporations whose business
he manages. He was aware of his obligation to file returns and
of the applicable deadlines. The advice he received from
Leuschner was that failure to comply with filing deadlines would
have no adverse consequences because he would have no tax to pay.
Leuschner also may have explained to petitioner that his
recommendation was based in part on the concern that filing an
amended return would prompt an audit of the return. The argument
that reliance on such advice constitutes reasonable cause for
delinquency has been rejected repeatedly by this Court and
others. Jackson v. Commissioner, 864 F.2d 1521, 1527-1528 (10th
Cir. 1989), affg. 86 T.C. 492, 538-539 (1986); Becker v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1990-120; Estate of Smith v. United
States, 589 F. Supp. 836, 840 (E.D. La. 1984); cf. Lilley v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1989-602, affd. without published
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011