- 12 -
and tax payment were due and to meet these due dates. See
Estate of DiRezza v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. at 33-34; see also
Estate of Kerber v. United States, 717 F.2d 454 (8th Cir. 1983);
Smith v. United States, 702 F.2d 741, 743 (8th Cir. 1983).
Although the estate asks the Court to adopt a different rule
because Ms. Midgorden is not a tax professional, we decline to do
so.1
Turning to the estate's alternative argument, we reject this
argument as well. As to section 6651(a)(1), the estate is asking
us to review the $67,135 assessment which is outside our
jurisdiction. Our jurisdiction over respondent's determination
under section 6651(a)(1) extends only to the $2,429 addition to
tax imposed on the deficiency, and, in that regard, our previous
finding is conclusive. That is, the estate has failed to show
reasonable cause for the late filing. The same finding also
disposes of the only argument made by the estate in regard to
section 6651(a)(2). Because no reasonable cause was shown for
the late payment of $225,000, that amount cannot be subtracted
1 The estate does not claim that Ms. Midgorden is other than
an "ordinary person"; i.e., "one who is physically and mentally
capable of knowing, remembering, and complying with a filing
deadline", see United States v. Boyle, 469 U.S. 241, 253 (1985)
(Brennan, J., concurring), and we view her to be an "ordinary
person". Thus, we do not address the point made by Justice
Brennan in his concurrence in Boyle that a different rule may
apply when a fiduciary is unable to meet the standard of
"ordinary business care and prudence".
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011