- 46 -
Alexander Grant, a prominent national accounting firm, had
prepared the 1979 return without raising any question about the
Stonehurst deductions. Alexander Grant had prepared each of the
joint returns from 1973 to 1981 for Mr. Heitzman and petitioner.
Under the circumstances, petitioner was entitled to rely upon the
imprimatur of legitimacy that Alexander Grant lent to the joint
return. To petitioner, cognizant of Mr. Heitzman’s explanation
and the manner in which the return was prepared, nothing was
amiss.18
Even if we were to find that the return should have alerted
a reasonable taxpayer to question the deduction as not being
legitimate--and we do not so find--to impose a duty to inquire on
petitioner under these circumstances would be to impose a duty to
perform a futile act. Reser v. Commissioner, 112 F.3d 1258, 1269
(5th Cir. 1997), affg. in part and revg. in part T.C. Memo. 1995-
572. She already knew that a qualified income tax return
preparer had prepared the return without question, and the duty
to inquire “does not extend so far as to impose on a spouse the
18 The lack of mention in the record that Alexander Grant
questioned the deductions claimed pursuant to Stonehurst when it
prepared petitioner’s and Mr. Heitzman’s 1979 joint return does
not change the analysis of whether those deductions were grossly
erroneous. We cannot determine from the record whether Alexander
Grant’s actions were reasonable or not in signing the return
based on the information available to them, nor need we answer
that question. It suffices for our purposes that the return was
signed by a respected income tax return preparer, and petitioner
acted reasonably in relying on that signature with respect to
whether petitioner should have questioned the validity of the
deductions claimed on the returns.
Page: Previous 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011