Carl Goudas and Marilyn Goudas - Page 41

                                       - 41 -                                         

          circumstances.  Rybak v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 524, 565 (1988);             
          Neely v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 934, 947 (1985).                             
               We find that the underpayment was not due to negligence or             
          disregard of rules or regulations.  Petitioner has limited                  
          knowledge concerning Federal income taxes, and relied primarily             
          on professional tax advisers and his partner in Coastal, who is a           
          certified public accountant charged with its financial                      
          management, in preparing his 1988 tax return and disclosing the             
          transaction at issue.  Respondent relies on Jaques v.                       
          Commissioner, 935 F.2d 104 (6th Cir. 1991), affg. T.C. Memo.                
          1989-673, maintaining that petitioner failed to establish what              
          information was given to his accountant.  In order for reliance             
          on professional advice to excuse a taxpayer from the negligence             
          additions to tax, the reliance must be reasonable, in good faith,           
          and based upon full disclosure.  Freytag v. Commissioner, 89 T.C.           
          849, 888 (1987), affd. 904 F.2d 1011 (5th Cir. 1990), affd. 501             
          U.S. 868 (1991).  We are satisfied that petitioners have met                
          their burden of proof on each of these factors.                             
               Petitioners attached Form 8082 to their tax return,                    
          disclosing petitioner's treatment of the transaction at issue as            
          being different from the way in which Pecaris treated the                   
          transaction.  Although we disagree with the way in which the                
          transaction was treated by petitioner for tax purposes,                     
          petitioners' Form 8082 disclosure convinces us that petitioner              





Page:  Previous  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011