- 55 -
(2) Hinz did not merely retain Christy to give legal
advice as to the due date of the tax return, but rather
attempted to delegate to Christy the task of filing a timely
tax return.
Each of these reasons is by itself sufficient to require a
holding for respondent on this issue.
A. The Tax Return Was Already Late.
Under section 6651(a)(1), petitioner is liable for the late
filing addition to tax “unless it is shown that such failure [to
timely file the tax return] is due to reasonable cause and not
due to willful neglect”. (Emphasis added).
Petitioner maintains that the “reasonable cause” is
Christy’s advice to Hinz that the tax return’s filing due date
was February 4, 1994. Hinz testified that Christy first told him
of the February 4, 1994, due date when Christy “kind of hustled
me up as far as getting appraisals”. By that time, Hinz
testified they “had very little choice but to use the probate
referee’s figures”.
From this we conclude that, when Christy gave his erroneous
advice to Hinz, relatively little time remained before February
4, 1994, and thus, that August 4, 1993, had already passed. We
have so found. It follows that Hinz’s failure to timely file the
tax return by August 4, 1993, was not “due to” Christy’s
misinforming Hinz.
Page: Previous 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011