- 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 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011