- 29 -
"are not supported by any evidence." To find otherwise,
according to respondent, the Court would have to disregard
"petitioners' past conduct in filing extensions and failing
to make proper estimated tax payments" and the Court would
have to "accept the unsupported testimony of petitioners
and their representatives." Finally, respondent argues
that petitioners cannot avoid the delinquency addition
by claiming reasonable reliance on their accountants.
According to respondent, petitioners have not shown "'that
the advisor had sufficient knowledge of the taxpayer's
relevant financial circumstances to make an informed
decision.'" (quoting Stovall v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1983-450, affd. 762 F.2d 891 (11th Cir. 1985)).
Respondent's position in this case places great
emphasis on "the past history of petitioners' failure
to make proper estimates of Federal tax liability".
However troubling we find that history to be, we are
mindful of our opinion in Crocker v. Commissioner, 92 T.C.
899, 906 (1989), which states that "a mere comparison of
estimated tax liabilities with true tax liabilities will
not reveal whether petitioners' estimates were 'proper.'"
In that case, we continued with the following:
An estimate is no more than that. It is, "A
valuing or rating by the mind, without actually
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011