- 7 -
Auerbach, an experienced tax professional, as well as petitioner,
accepted the accuracy of Mr. Kelly's representation that
registration as an options principal qualified him to do business
as an options dealer. This led the Court to conclude that Mr.
Kelly's representation did not constitute such a substantial
deviation from ordinary behavior that it could not be ascribed to
an honest misunderstanding or simple carelessness.
There is no inconsistency in the Court's also finding that
petitioners were liable for the additions to tax pursuant to
section 6653. Any part of an underpayment attributable to a
position taken by the taxpayer in reasonable, bona fide reliance
upon professional tax advice is not attributable to negligence.
Ewing v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 396, 423-424 (1988), affd. without
published opinion 940 F.2d 1534 (9th Cir. 1991). In order to
prove reasonable reliance on an accountant, the taxpayer must
demonstrate that he supplied his adviser with complete and
accurate information. Pessin v. Commissioner, 59 T.C. 473, 489
1972); Enoch v. Commissioner, 57 T.C. 781, 803 (1972); Gill v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-92, affd. without published opinion
76 F.3d 378 (6th Cir. 1996). The Court found that Mr. Kelly did
not show that his status as a registered options principal in
fact entitled him to open his own office and deal in options.
Thus he simply did not satisfy his burden of showing that he
provided his accountant with complete and accurate information on
this material point. This finding is not inconsistent with the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011