- 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 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011