J. Brent Haymond and Janis S. Haymond - Page 11

                                       - 11 -                                         

          necessarily demonstrate reasonable cause and good faith.  Sec.              
          1.6664-4(b)(1), Income Tax Regs.  Where the taxpayer claims                 
          reliance on an accountant who prepared the return, the taxpayer             
          must establish that the correct information was provided to the             
          accountant and that the item incorrectly claimed or reported in             
          the return was the result of the accountant's error.  Ma-Tran               
          Corp. v. Commissioner, 70 T.C. 158, 173 (1978); Enoch v.                    
          Commissioner, 57 T.C. 781, 803 (1972).                                      
               Mr. Haymond and Mr. Strong, an experienced C.P.A., discussed           
          the sale of the stock, and Mr. Haymond provided him with the                
          resolution.  Mr. Strong knew the commission had not been paid               
          and that InTex used the cash method of accounting.  It was not at           
          Mr. Haymond's instruction, but rather on Mr. Strong's own                   
          initiative, that the commission was treated as part of the basis            
          of the Bonneville Pacific stock.                                            
               We find that petitioners provided Mr. Strong with sufficient           
          information and that their reliance on Mr. Strong was reasonable            
          and in good faith.  We think that the question of includability             
          of the commission obligation was sufficiently technical so that             
          neither Mr. Haymond (and a fortiori, Mrs. Haymond) could have               
          been expected to dispute Mr. Strong's treatment.  See United                
          States v. Boyle, 469 U.S. 241, 251 (1983) ("Most taxpayers are              
          not competent to discern error in the substantive advice of an              
          accountant or an attorney"); cf. Olsen Associates, Inc. v. United           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011