- 14 -
income tax liabilities of the estate. Had he determined on his
own that there were no tax liabilities or simply ignored this
notice and made no further inquiry, he would probably be
chargeable with notice of the tax liabilities. However,
petitioner did not ignore the information about potential tax
liabilities. Petitioner recognized that he did not have the
knowledge or experience to determine whether the estate owed tax.
He therefore gave the information to the estate’s licensed
attorney, who had been retained to advise petitioner in the
administration of the estate, and asked for advice. Petitioner’s
inquiry was neither haphazard nor careless; rather it was the
prudent and reasonable thing to do. Unfortunately, the attorney
came up with the wrong advice when he repeatedly told petitioner
that there was no tax liability. But what more should petitioner
have done? As the Supreme Court observed in United States v.
Boyle, 469 U.S. 241, 251 (1985):
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. To require the taxpayer to challenge the
attorney, to seek a "second opinion," or to try to
monitor counsel on the provisions of the Code himself
would nullify the very purpose of seeking the advice of
a presumed expert in the first place. See Haywood
Lumber, [178 F.2d] supra, at 771. "Ordinary business
care and prudence" do not demand such actions.
Regardless of the culpability of the estate’s attorney in
failing to ascertain the estate’s income tax liabilities, the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011