- 37 -
In Thompson v. United States, supra, the Court of Appeals
for the Tenth Circuit held that the District Court did not abuse
its discretion in instructing the jury that reasonable, good-
faith reliance on the advice of a professional adviser
constitutes a defense to negligence within the meaning of section
6653. This holding served to uphold the jury’s verdict in favor
of the taxpayers on the issue of negligence.
In Thompson v. United States, supra, the Government relied
heavily on the unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals for
the Tenth Circuit in a similar Plastics Recycling case, Gilmore &
Wilson Constr. Co. v. Commissioner, 166 F.3d 1221 (10th Cir.
1999), affg. Estate of Hogard v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-
174. The Court of Appeals dismissed the Government’s assertion
that its holding in that case was dispositive of the issue before
it:
In that case we reviewed the tax court’s factual
determination, made after a bench trial, that the
taxpayers were negligent. Here we consider the more
limited question of whether a reliance instruction was
warranted. Had we been presented with such a question
in Gilmore & Wilson, we would likely have upheld the
instruction. See id. at *5 (“The evidence introduced,
both at trial and through stipulation, presents a close
question regarding whether taxpayers were negligent.”)
For this reason, the government’s reliance on Gilmore &
Wilson is misplaced. [Thompson v. United States, supra
at 1210; fn. ref. omitted.]
In the present cases, we have considered petitioner’s
contention regarding reliance. However, we have concluded, based
on the totality of the facts and circumstances presented at
Page: Previous 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011