- 12 -
Respondent, relying on United States v. Boyle, supra, contends
that Mr. Constantino had a duty to ascertain the due date of the
estate tax return and to file it timely, regardless of any
reliance on Mr. Belotz. Respondent contends that none of the
reasons advanced by petitioner for the failure to file timely
establish that the delay was due to reasonable cause and not
willful neglect. Respondent notes that the return was filed
almost 5 months after the extended due date even though Mr.
Constantino was aware that it was overdue.
Although petitioner has established that the difficulties
experienced in identifying decedent's assets were unusual in the
experience of Mr. Constantino and Mr. Belotz, the uncertainty
that may have existed at the time of the extended due date
concerning the identification of all of those assets does not
constitute reasonable cause for the failure to file petitioner's
estate tax return timely. At the time of the extended due date
of the estate tax return on August 28, 1991, Mr. Belotz had
sufficient information concerning assets includable in decedent's
estate to permit filing of that return.2 At trial, Mr. Belotz
admitted that the return could have been filed based on the
information that he possessed at the time the second extension
request was denied.
2 As further discussed below, the information that Mr. Belotz
lacked related to the expenses of the estate, and Mr. Constantino
was tardy in providing that information to Mr. Belotz.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011