The Escrow Connection, Inc., A.K.A. The Escrow Connection - Page 32

                                       - 32 -                                         

          reasonable cause for its deduction of the excessive                         
          compensation.                                                               
               To avoid liability for the addition to tax, petitioner                 
          further argues that it relied on the advice of its accountant,              
          West.  Reliance upon the advice of an attorney or accountant                
          constitutes a showing of reasonable cause and good faith only if            
          it was reasonable to rely on the advice under the circumstances.            
          Vorsheck v. Commissioner, 933 F.2d 757, 759 (9th Cir. 1991);                
          sec. 1.6661-6(b), Income Tax Regs.  For reliance on professional            
          advice to be reasonable, the taxpayer must supply the accountant            
          with accurate information and the error in the return must be               
          due to the accountant's mistake.  Metra Chem Corp. v.                       
          Commissioner, 88 T.C. 654, 662 (1987); Ma-Tran Corp. v.                     
          Commissioner, 70 T.C. 158, 173 (1978).  The experience and                  
          sophistication of the taxpayer affect the reasonableness of its             
          reliance on a professional.  Vorsheck v. Commissioner, supra at             
          759.                                                                        
               In this case, Kleindienst, petitioner's representative, is             
          a sophisticated and experienced businesswoman well aware of the             
          prior audit and the uncertainty of the legality of the                      
          compensation deduction for taxable year ended July 31, 1987.                
          Kleindienst not only participated in the compensation                       
          determination but also had the final authority to set her own               
          compensation.  Petitioner did not prove that the deficiency                 





Page:  Previous  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011