- NEXTRECORD -
reasonable cause exists and whether willful neglect is absent are
questions of fact to be decided based on all of the facts and
circumstances in a particular case. Estate of DiRezza v.
Commissioner, supra at 33.
Petitioners contend that they are not liable for the
addition to tax because petitioner's attorney in the drug
prosecution advised petitioner not to file his 1990 income tax
return until the criminal case was concluded. However, apart
from the fact that this contention would not shield Mrs. Chandler
from liability for the addition to tax because she was neither a
defendant nor otherwise implicated in the drug prosecution,6 we
are not persuaded, for the following reasons, that the defense of
reliance on professional advice is available to petitioners under
the particular facts of the present case. See United States v.
Boyle, supra.
First, we are again reminded of the familiar principle that
the Court is not required to accept uncritically a taxpayer's
self-serving testimony as gospel. Tokarski v. Commissioner, 87
T.C. 74, 77 (1986). The application of this principle in the
present case is especially significant because we cannot imagine
6 We note that Mrs. Chandler is a college graduate and a
registered nurse by profession. In 1989 and for part of 1990,
she worked part-time as a bookkeeper. She impressed us as an
intelligent woman. Given her relatively straightforward tax
situation, we can see no compelling reason why she could not have
prepared her own return or at least sought competent assistance
if petitioner had been unwilling to timely file a joint return.
See sec. 6013(b)(1).
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011