- 8 -
reasonable and prudent person would do under similar
circumstances), affg. 92 T.C. 1 (1989).
Petitioner claims she was unsophisticated about tax laws,
and that she relied on the Preparer to prepare a proper return.
Although he failed to do so, petitioner concludes, her reliance
on him to do a proper job was consistent with ordinary business
care and prudence under the circumstances. We do not agree.
Reasonable reliance on a tax adviser is consistent with ordinary
business care and prudence only in certain cases. In those
cases, the taxpayer must establish that: (1) The adviser had
sufficient expertise to justify reliance, (2) the taxpayer
provided necessary and accurate information to the adviser, and
(3) the taxpayer actually relied in good faith on the adviser's
judgment. See, e.g., Ellwest Stereo Theatres, Inc. v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-610. We are unable to find in the
record that petitioner met any of these requirements; i.e.,
(1) We know nothing about the preparer or his firm, (2) we are
unable to find that petitioner provided necessary and accurate
information to the Preparer, and (3) the record indicates that
petitioner did not actually rely in good faith on the Preparer's
judgment. We conclude that petitioner did not exercise due care,
and that she failed to do what a reasonable and ordinarily
prudent person would have done under the circumstances. We hold
for respondent on this issue.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011