- 36 -
magazine, and Discover magazine. This experienced business and
science journalist claims that he relied upon an accountant to
investigate the tax law and the underlying business circumstances
of a proposed investment, the success of which depended upon a
purportedly technologically unique machine. Becker, who is
experienced in tax matters, explains that he made an
investigation within the limits of his resources and abilities
and that he and Tucker fully disclosed what he had done. For
reasons set forth below, we believe that petitioner did not
reasonably rely upon Tucker, and ultimately Becker, with respect
to valuation problems requiring expertise in engineering and
plastics technology.
a. The Circumstances Under Which a Taxpayer
May Avoid Liability Under Section 6653(a)(1)
and (2) Because of Reasonable Reliance on
Competent and Fully Informed Professional
Advice
A taxpayer may avoid liability for the additions to tax
under section 6653(a)(1) and (2) if he or she reasonably relied
on competent professional advice. United States v. Boyle, 469
U.S. 241, 250-251 (1985); Freytag v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 849,
888 (1987), affd. 904 F.2d 1011 (5th Cir. 1990), affd. 501 U.S.
868 (1991). Reliance on professional advice, standing alone, is
not an absolute defense to negligence, but rather a factor to be
considered. Freytag v. Commissioner, supra. For reliance on
professional advice to excuse a taxpayer from the negligence
additions to tax, the taxpayer must show that the professional
Page: Previous 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011