- 13 -
or she reasonably relied in good faith on the advice of a
competent, independent expert or tax professional who had all the
information. See United States v. Boyle, 469 U.S. 241, 250
(1985); Schwalbach v. Commissioner, 111 T.C. 215, 230 (1998);
Freytag v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 849, 888 (1987), affd. 904 F.2d
1011 (5th Cir. 1990), affd. on other issue 501 U.S. 868 (1991).
2. Reliance on Professional Advice
Petitioners contend that they reasonably relied on the
advice of their daughter-in-law, Susan Barmes. We disagree.
Petitioner and Susan Barmes testified that she spent a
substantial amount of time helping petitioner prepare
petitioners’ 1994 tax return. However, neither petitioners nor
Susan Barmes described any advice that she gave petitioners
regarding the depreciation of their automobiles or the deduction
of their restoration of landscaping expenses. Thus, there is no
evidence that petitioners relied on Susan Barmes’ advice on those
issues.
Petitioners contend that they were not negligent because
they and Susan Barmes relied on IRS Publication 334, Tax Guide
for Small Business, and IRS Publication 534, Depreciation, to
prepare petitioners’ return. We disagree. Petitioners did not
follow the instructions contained in IRS Publication 334. For
example, IRS Publication 334, at 77, states: “If you use your
car for both business and personal purposes, you must divide your
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011