- 40 -
the matter again. However, this contradicts the events that
transpired in 1991. Prior to the lapse of the first extension
(before March 28, 1991), Yang as the executrix filed an
application for a second extension of time to file the return to
March 28, 1992, but respondent denied the extension of time to
file on April 4, 1991. As a result, the executrix knew that the
second request was denied, resulting in the return being due by
March 28, 1991. This is distinct from the facts presented in
Estate of La Meres, where the respondent did not notify
petitioner about the denial of the second extension until the
audit. Id. at 321. We think a prudent taxpayer upon
notification that the second extension was denied would have
inquired further and would not have relied upon Wang's statement
that a return would not be due.
Further, while in Yang's affidavit she stated that she
relied on Wang's advice "because of his education, apparent
competency, and our longstanding and mutually productive
relationship," her testimony at trial was less persuasive.
During trial, Yang testified that Wang had performed tax services
for the Youngs, but she was unaware of Wang's educational
background, such as where he attended school and whether he had a
master's degree in taxation. While Yang was aware that Wang was
a certified public accountant, her testimony was unclear whether
she based her reliance on that fact. See Sanders v.
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