- 138 -
Petitioners state that the reliance was reasonable given
petitioners' language problems, lack of U.S. business experience,
and total unfamiliarity with U.S. tax laws.
Respondent contends that petitioners disregarded rules or
regulations and were negligent when they created false and
backdated documents, submitted false information on their tax
returns and to the IRS during audit, and claimed deductions based
on the false information. Respondent states that petitioners
cannot claim reliance on their advisers because petitioners
provided incomplete and incorrect information to C&L and
disregarded C&L's advice.
Petitioners rely on United States v. Boyle, 469 U.S. 241
(1985). In Boyle, the Supreme Court stated that it is reasonable
for a taxpayer to rely on an accountant or attorney who advises a
taxpayer on a matter of tax law. Id. at 251. However, "Reliance
by a lay person on a lawyer is of course common; but that
reliance cannot function as a substitute for compliance with an
unambiguous statute." Id. In Boyle, the taxpayer failed to file
an estate tax return. The Supreme Court stated that it takes no
special training or effort to ascertain a deadline and make sure
that it is met. The Court held that the taxpayer's failure to
file was not excused by the taxpayer's reliance on an agent.
In these cases, petitioners failed to comply with
unambiguous information requests on their Federal tax returns and
during the IRS audit. As early as 1985, petitioners were
Page: Previous 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011