- 6 -
undoubtedly erroneous, Mehrafsar's reliance on such advice
satisfies the reasonable cause exception under section
6651(a)(1). We disagree. Although reasonable reliance on the
erroneous advice of an attorney with respect to the due date of a
return can constitute reasonable cause within the meaning of
section 6651(a)(1), Estate of La Meres v. Commissioner, 98 T.C.
294 (1992), petitioner has not persuaded us that Mehrafsar's
reliance on Hastings' advice provided reasonable cause to excuse
the late filing.
We agree that Hastings provided erroneous advice to
Mehrafsar. This is clear from the Form 4768 Hastings prepared
for Mehrafsar's signature. In direct conflict with section
6081(a), which generally limits an extension to 6 months, the
Form 4768 prepared by Hastings requested a 12-month extension.2
It is reasonable to assume that Hastings discussed the content of
the Form 4768 with Mehrafsar at the time he signed the form. As
a result, it is equally reasonable to assume that Mehrafsar, at
the time he signed the Form 4768, believed that a 12-month
extension was possible. But the record indicates that Mehrafsar
discovered sometime after completing the Form 4768 on September
2In fact, the record suggests that Hastings honestly
believed that a 12-month extension was possible. We reach this
conclusion because Hastings corresponded with Mehrafsar on March
24, 1989, 2 days before the return was due, regarding tentative
real property appraisal values obtained by a probate referee and
mentioned nothing about the due date being 2 days later. If
Hastings had been aware of sec. 6081(a), we are convinced the
above-referenced correspondence would have indicated as much.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011