- 41 -
that the failure to file is due to reasonable cause and not
willful neglect.
Petitioners concede that their 1986 and 1987 Federal income
tax returns were filed late. On brief, petitioners argue that
they are not liable for the section 6651(a)(1) addition to tax
because they reasonably relied on their accountants, who charged
much and performed poorly. Although acknowledging that “The tax
law does not recognize that the delegation of this responsibility
constitutes reasonable cause for not filing”, petitioners argue
that the law should be otherwise.
We decline petitioners’ invitation to revisit legal
principles that by their own admission are well established. As
stated by the Supreme Court in United States v. Boyle, 469 U.S.
241, 249-252 (1985):
Congress has placed the burden of prompt filing on the
* * * [taxpayer], not on some agent or employee of the
* * * [taxpayer]. The duty is fixed and clear; Congress
intended to place upon the taxpayer an obligation to
ascertain the statutory deadline and then to meet that
deadline, except in a very narrow range of situations.
* * * * * * *
It requires no special training or effort to ascertain
a deadline and make sure that it is met. The failure to
make a timely filing of a tax return is not excused by the
taxpayer’s reliance on an agent, and such reliance is not
“reasonable cause” for a late filing under sec. 6651(a)(1).
We sustain respondent’s determination on this issue.
Page: Previous 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011