- 15 -
distinguishable in at least one important respect; to wit, in
Estate of La Meres, the Service did not timely communicate its
denial of the request for a second extension of the due date of
the return. Id. at 321-322. In the instant case, however, the
Service notified Mr. Belotz that the second extension request had
been denied, and he in turn notified Mr. Constantino of the
Service's action during mid-September 1991. Even assuming
arguendo that Mr. Constantino reasonably relied on Mr. Belotz'
advice4 that it was possible to obtain a second extension of the
4 We believe that it is questionable whether Mr. Constantino's
reliance on Mr. Belotz' advice with respect to the availability
of a second extension was reasonable. Even though Mr.
Constantino was told by Mr. Belotz that he believed there were
good grounds for requesting a second extension, Mr. Belotz
informed Mr. Constantino that, in Mr. Belotz' experience, which
included preparing over 50 Federal estate tax returns, he had
never had occasion to request a second extension of a due date.
Additionally, Mr. Belotz could not find a form for requesting
such an extension. Despite such circumstances, which might raise
a red flag as to whether a second extension was available, Mr.
Belotz apparently did not make any inquiries to ascertain whether
or not the Service would grant a second extension of the due date
for filing petitioner's estate tax return, and he admitted that
he was unaware that the regulations provided that the maximum
allowable extension of time for filing an estate tax return was 6
months beyond its original due date. We infer from such
circumstances that Mr. Belotz simply did not know whether or not
a second extension could be obtained, and that Mr. Constantino,
himself an attorney, should have been put on notice of Mr.
Belotz' lack of knowledge and should have required further
research of the issue, which would have revealed the lack of
availability of a second extension of the due date of the estate
tax return.
Where reliance on an adviser is not reasonable, such
reliance does not afford reasonable cause for a failure to file
timely. Boles Trucking, Inc. v. United States, 77 F.3d 236, 242
(8th Cir. 1996); Zabolotny v. Commissioner, 97 T.C. 385, 401-402
(1991), affd. in part and revd. in part on other grounds 7 F.3d
(continued...)
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011