Estate of Houshang Mehrafsar, Deceased, Bank of America, NT & SA, Special Administrator - Page 6

                                        - 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