- 11 -
We are not persuaded by either of the estate's arguments.
First, the record fails to support the estate's assertion that
Mr. Thorsen advised Ms. Midgorden that the estate tax return was
not due for 18 months and that she relied on this advice. Nor
does the record show that Ms. Midgorden, before the June 1994
meeting, solicited or received advice as to when she actually had
to tender payment to the Commissioner. Ms. Midgorden was the
only witness at trial, and she testified that she retained
Mr. Held to prepare the estate tax return because Mr. Thorsen did
not agree to help her with it. Her letter to the Service also
undercuts the estate's assertion that Mr. Thorsen erroneously
advised her about an 18-month filing period and that her late
filing was due to reliance on this advice. On this record, we
are unable to agree with the estate that Ms. Midgorden relied on
erroneous advice from Mr. Thorsen concerning the due date of the
return and that this alleged reliance constitutes reasonable
cause for her late filing or her late payment. See Denenburg v.
United States, 920 F.2d 301 (5th Cir. 1991); see also Estate of
Newton v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1990-208. The fact that the
return may have been too complicated for Ms. Midgorden to
complete without professional assistance, as the estate asserts,
does not mean that she had reasonable cause for filing the
return, or paying the tax, when she did. As fiduciary of the
estate, Ms. Midgorden was obligated to ascertain when the return
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011