- 51 - records were inadequate, partly because of petitioners’ practice of commingling funds and disregarding corporate formalities. We have determined that petitioners acted with fraudulent intent as regards the omitted gas rebate income. Although petitioners have not expressly argued that they had substantial authority or made adequate disclosure within the meaning of section 6661(b)(2)(B), on brief they argue that they relied on Selfe v. United States, 778 F.2d at 769. Any such reliance was misplaced. As previously discussed, the Morrises did not even personally guarantee the loans in question. Moreover, petitioners have failed to establish the outstanding balance, if any, of loans between AMI and Towers Development for any year in issue. Accordingly, we conclude that Selfe and its progeny are “so dissimilar that they must be discarded as providing no substantial authority for the tax returns filed in this case.” Osteen v. Commissioner, 62 F.3d 356, 360 (11th Cir. 1995), revg. on this point T.C. Memo. 1993-519. Moreover, petitioners have not shown substantial authority or adequate disclosure for other positions taken on their returns. Opinions rendered by tax professionals are not substantial authority. See sec. 1.6661-3(b)(2), Income Tax Regs. We sustain respondent’s determination on this issue.Page: Previous 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011