-10-
Accordingly, petitioner has not carried his burden of proving
reasonable reliance on a qualified tax adviser.
On brief, petitioner further argues that he had reasonable
cause for not filing returns because determining the proper
taxpayer to report the income from the tile setting business was
a complex legal issue. Even though several payors filed
information returns reporting that petitioner earned self-
employment income, petitioner contends that he believed Lorenzo
Thomas was the proper taxpayer, given that Lorenzo Thomas
performed all of the actual tile setting.
In some cases taxpayers have succeeded in avoiding additions
to tax by showing that the deficiency resulted from an honest and
reasonable misunderstanding of complex law. Metra Chem Corp. v.
Commissioner, 88 T.C. 654, 661 (1987) (no negligence for purposes
of sec. 6653(a)); Yelencsics v. Commissioner, 74 T.C. 1513, 1533
(1980) (same); Belz Inv. Co. v. Commissioner, 72 T.C. 1209, 1233-
1234 (1979), affd. 661 F.2d 76 (6th Cir. 1981) (same).
Petitioner's situation does not present a complex legal
issue reasonably susceptible of different interpretations.
Petitioner earned income from his tile setting business that he
simply failed to report. Petitioner has failed to demonstrate
the existence of a situation that only a very sophisticated
taxpayer could reasonably be expected to comprehend.
We conclude that petitioner has not shown that his failure
to file returns for the years at issue was due to reasonable
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011