William D. Little - Page 13




                                       - 13 -                                         

          funds to have knowingly disregarded debts due to the United                 
          States.  It is this knowing disregard of the debts due to the               
          United States that gives rise to liability under 31 U.S.C.                  
          section 3713(b).  See Leigh v. Commissioner, supra at 1109-1110.            
               No cases involving 31 U.S.C. section 3713(b) have been                 
          brought to our attention where the fiduciary was put on notice of           
          possible debts due to the United States, made reasonable inquiry            
          of legal counsel, and then relied in good faith on erroneous                
          legal advice that there were no such debts. Respondent relies on            
          New v. Commissioner, supra at 679, where we stated:                         
               If a fiduciary is put on inquiry, the fact that he                     
               inquires wrongly or haphazardly is not enough and is no                
               defense.  To absolve petitioner because his inquiry                    
               turned out to be inadequate would be to reward the                     
               careless fiduciary and to put a premium on rapid                       
               cursory investigations.  Once a fiduciary is put on                    
               notice sufficient to put a reasonably prudent person on                
               inquiry, he thereafter pursues a unilateral inquiry at                 
               his peril.  Any other conclusion would make the                        
               fiduciary the final arbiter of what the estate owed in                 
               tax, a result entirely nullifying all effect of 31                     
               U.S.C. sec. 192.                                                       
               The situation described in the above quotation is clearly              
          different from the situation in the instant case.  The actual               
          facts in New are also distinguishable in that the fiduciary in              
          that case was himself an attorney with experience in the                    
          administration of estates, and his unilateral inquiries regarding           
          tax liabilities were found to be severely flawed.                           
               Here, petitioner had no prior experience with the                      
          administration of estates when he was put on notice of potential            




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011