- 59 -
United States v. Boyle, 469 U.S. 241, 245 (1985). Petitioners
have the burden of proving that the failure to file was due to
reasonable cause and not to willful neglect. Niedringhaus v.
Commissioner, 99 T.C. at 220-221; Baldwin v. Commissioner, 84
T.C. 859, 870 (1985). To prove "reasonable cause", taxpayers
must show that they exercised ordinary business care and prudence
but nevertheless were unable to file the return within the
statutorily prescribed time. Crocker v. Commissioner, 92 T.C.
899, 913 (1989); sec. 301.6651-1(c)(1), Proced. & Admin. Regs.
Generally, taxpayers may establish reasonable cause by proving
that they reasonably relied on the advice of an accountant or
attorney that it was unnecessary to file a return and later found
that the advice was erroneous or mistaken. United States v.
Boyle, supra at 250; Estate of Paxton v. Commissioner, 86 T.C.
785, 820 (1986). We have held that reasonable reliance on the
erroneous advice of an attorney with respect to the due date of a
return may constitute "reasonable cause" within the meaning of
section 6651(a)(1). Estate of La Meres v. Commissioner, 98 T.C.
294, 318 (1992).
The law is well settled, however, that "reliance on an agent
to actually file the return, no matter how reasonable, will not,
as a matter of law, constitute reasonable cause for a late filing
under section 6651(a)(1)." Id. at 314. The Supreme Court made
clear in United States v. Boyle, supra, that a taxpayer's
reliance on an agent to perform a nondelegable duty is different
Page: Previous 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011