- 17 -
certain that petitioner's estate tax return would not be filed
timely in the event the Service denied the request, and they
apparently were willing to assume that risk.
Moreover, it appears to us, and respondent suggests on
brief, that the Service would not have treated the estate tax
return as late had it been filed within 10 days of September 5,
1991, the date the second extension request was denied. Rev.
Rul. 64-214, 1964-2 C.B. 472; see Estate of La Meres v.
Commissioner, supra at 305 n.6. At approximately that time,
i.e., during mid-September 1991, Mr. Constantino learned that the
second extension request had been denied. However, despite being
aware that the second extension request had been denied and that
the return was overdue, Mr. Constantino did not direct Mr. Belotz
to file the return as quickly as possible, although Mr. Belotz
had sufficient information to do so at that time. Moreover, it
was Mr. Constantino himself who was tardy in providing Mr. Belotz
with the information that was apparently needed to complete the
preparation of the return. Mr. Constantino thus contributed in
large measure to the additional delay in filing the return.
Petitioner's further arguments focus on Mr. Belotz' alleged
failure to advise, rather than on his giving of erroneous advice.
We note that generally there must be some advice on which a
taxpayer has relied in order to establish reasonable cause, and
the absence of advice affords the taxpayer nothing on which to
rely. Eastern Inv. Corp. v. United States, 49 F.3d 651, 656
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