- 38 -
on his attorney. Id. at 244. The Supreme Court noted that
engaging an attorney to assist in the probate proceedings is
plainly an exercise of the ordinary business care and prudence as
described by the regulations. Id. at 250. The Court continued
to say:
When an accountant or attorney advises a taxpayer on a
matter of tax law, such as whether a liability exists, it is
reasonable for the taxpayer to rely on that advice. Most
taxpayers are not competent to discern error in the
substantive advice of an accountant or attorney.
* * *
By contrast, one does not have to be a tax expert to
know that tax returns have fixed filing dates and that taxes
must be paid when they are due. In short, tax returns imply
deadlines. Reliance by a lay person on a lawyer is of
course common; but that reliance cannot function as a
substitute for compliance with an unambiguous statute. * * *
Id. at 251. The Court held that reliance on an agent was not
reasonable cause for failing to perform a nondelegable duty of
filing the return. Id. at 252.
When a taxpayer shows that he reasonably relied on the
"advice" of an accountant or attorney, even when such advice
turned out to be mistaken, courts have frequently held that such
reliance constitutes reasonable cause if the executor did not
merely assign the nondelegable duty to file to the attorney or
accountant. Estate of La Meres v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 294, 314
(1992). To support its position of reliance on Wang's erroneous
advice, petitioner cites the following cases: Estate of La Meres
v. Commissioner, supra; Housden v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-
91; and Estate of DiPalma v. Commissioner, 71 T.C. 324 (1978).
Page: Previous 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011