- 31 -
and ordinarily prudent person would exercise under the
circumstances. See Neely v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 934, 947
(1985). The pertinent question is whether a particular
taxpayer's actions are reasonable in light of the taxpayer's
experience, the nature of the investment, and the taxpayer's
actions in connection with the transactions. See Henry Schwartz
Corp. v. Commissioner, 60 T.C. 728, 740 (1973). In this regard,
the determination of negligence is highly factual. "When
considering the negligence addition, we evaluate the particular
facts of each case, judging the relative sophistication of the
taxpayers as well as the manner in which the taxpayers approached
their investment." Turner v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-363.
Under some circumstances, a taxpayer may avoid liability for
negligence if reasonable reliance on a competent professional
adviser is shown. See United States v. Boyle, 469 U.S. 241, 250-
251 (1985); Freytag v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 849, 888 (1987),
affd. 904 F.2d 1011 (5th Cir. 1990), affd. 501 U.S. 868 (1991).
Reliance on professional advice, standing alone, is not an
absolute defense to negligence, but rather a factor to be
considered. See Freytag v. Commissioner, supra. For reliance on
professional advice to excuse a taxpayer from negligence, the
taxpayer must show that the professional had the requisite
expertise, as well as knowledge of the pertinent facts, to
provide informed advice on the subject matter. See David v.
Page: Previous 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011