- 11 -
the advice of a professional who was qualified to give advice on
the matter involved.
Heasley involved taxpayers who were not high school
graduates. Despite substantially less education than petitioner,
they nonetheless read at least part of the prospectus, reviewed
it with their financial adviser, and subsequently monitored their
investment after investing. In these circumstances, the Court of
Appeals declined to sustain the Commissioner's negligence
determination. In Mauerman v. Commissioner, supra, which
concerned the question of whether the Commissioner's refusal to
waive additions for a substantial understatement was an abuse of
discretion, the Commissioner's deficiency determination involved
only the timing of the deduction. The Court of Appeals concluded
that the taxpayer's reliance on a tax professional's advice as to
the appropriate timing of a deduction was reasonable and
therefore the Commissioner's refusal to waive the understatement
penalty was an abuse of discretion. The situation in the instant
case involves reliance on a professional without any demonstrated
capacity in the area with which the advice was concerned.
As to Durrett v. Commissioner, supra, and Chamberlain v.
Commissioner, supra, to the extent the holdings in these two
cases suggest a relaxation of the requirement that advisers must
be knowledgeable if reliance on their advice is to be considered
reasonable, cf. Freytag v. Commissioner, supra, we note that both
are decisions of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011