- 26 -
of deficiency is insufficient to support petitioner's position.
Thus, petitioner's arguments that respondent never raised the
section 6621(c) issue are without merit.11
Since we have concluded that the loss deductions in issue
are disallowed under section 465(a), it follows that the
activities were tax-motivated transactions under section
6621(c)(3). We therefore sustain respondent on this issue.
Section 6653(a) (Negligence)
Respondent has determined an addition to tax under section
6653(a) for negligence. Petitioner claims it should not be
liable for the addition because decedent reasonably relied on the
advice of his accountant, Mr. Michaels, in making the investment.
We see no need to explore the details of how decedent sought
and obtained professional advice in respect of the tax
consequences attaching to his investment in the partnership. We
are satisfied that he recognized the necessity of seeking such
advice, that he sought it from his accountant, Mr. Michaels, who
had sufficient experience to render such advice, and with whom
decedent discussed the tax implications. He received that advice
from Mr. Michaels, advice based upon reasonable investigation and
analysis of all relevant information, including consultation with
11 In this context, we consider and reject petitioner's
argument based on Fowler v. Commissioner, 6 B.T.A. 250 (1927).
That case involved the attempt by respondent to supplement the
Answer with a letter predating the notice of deficiency, not a
letter attached to the notice.
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011