- 51 -
Federal tax rolls as to both the regular income tax and, they
contended, the self-employment taxes. See supra table 2.
Clearly, the ordinarily prudent taxpayer would consult with a
qualified tax adviser before claiming a deduction of such
relative size and consequence.
Petitioners claim that they did just that--they consulted
with Henry and they acted on Henry’s advice. However,
petitioners did not tell us exactly what Henry’s advice was, nor
did they provide us with information from which we could conclude
that it was reasonable for them to rely on Henry’s advice.
Finally, as discussed supra (I. Settlement A. With Justice
Department), petitioners promised that we would have Henry’s
testimony, but then did not call Henry. As discussed supra in
Part I.A., we are entitled to, and we do, infer that if Henry had
testified, then his testimony would have been unfavorable to
petitioners on this issue. O’Dwyer v. Commissioner, 266 F.2d at
584; Stoumen v. Commissioner, 208 F.2d at 907; Wichita Terminal
Elevator Co. v. Commissioner, 6 T.C. at 1165.
Also apart from the effect of the Wichita Terminal doctrine,
when taxpayers rely on the claim that they are not negligent
because they merely followed competent professional advice, it is
particularly important that they present their adviser, that they
show with some precision what their adviser advised them to do,
Page: Previous 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011