- 60 -
from a taxpayer's reliance on an expert's advice. Estate of La
Meres v. Commissioner, supra at 314.
The record contains no explanation as to why the Takaos'
1988 return was not timely filed. Petitioners have not shown
that the Takaos' failure to file timely returns was due to good
faith reliance on Nakamura's erroneous advice, rather than
reliance on him to perform their nondelegable duty to file that
return. Petitioners have not satisfied their burden of proving
that the Takaos had reasonable cause for not timely filing their
1988 return, and, accordingly, we sustain respondent's
determination of the addition to tax under section 6651(a).
Sections 6653(a)(1) and 6662(a)
Respondent determined that the Takaos are liable for an
addition to tax under for negligence under section 6653(a)(1) for
1988 and accuracy-related penalties for negligence under section
6662(a) for 1989, 1990, and 1991. Petitioners contend that the
Takaos are not liable for the addition to tax or accuracy-related
penalties for negligence, because they relied in good faith on
Nakamura to prepare their tax returns properly for the years in
issue. Respondent contends that petitioners failed to prove that
the Takaos had reasonable cause for understating their income on
their returns for 1988 through 1991, and that the understatements
constitute negligence within the meaning of section 6653(a)(1)
and section 6662(a)(1). We agree with respondent.
Section 6653(a)(1) imposes an addition to tax equal to 5
percent of the underpayment if any part of the deficiency was due
Page: Previous 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011