- 56 -
Because (a) both of petitioner’s reasonable cause
contentions are based on Christy’s misinforming Hinz, and (b) we
have concluded that petitioner’s failure to timely file the tax
return was not due to Christy’s misinforming Hinz, we conclude
that (c) petitioner’s failure to timely file the tax return was
not due to reasonable cause.
B. Which Side of the Boyle “Bright Line”?
In United States v. Boyle, 469 U.S. 241 (1985), Boyle, as
executor of his mother’s estate, retained Keyser to serve as
attorney for the estate. Boyle--
relied on Keyser for instruction and guidance. He
cooperated fully with his attorney and provided Keyser
with all relevant information and records. Respondent
[i.e., Boyle] and his wife contacted Keyser a number of
times during the spring and summer of 1979 to inquire
about the progress of the proceedings and the
preparation of the tax return; they were assured that
they would be notified when the return was due and that
the return would be filed “in plenty of time.” App.
39. When respondent called Keyser on September 6,
1979, he learned for the first time that the return was
by then overdue. Apparently, Keyser had overlooked the
matter because of a clerical oversight in omitting the
filing date from Keyser’s master calendar. Respondent
met with Keyser on September 11, and the return was
filed on September 13, three months late.
United States v. Boyle, Id. at 242-243.
In Boyle, the Supreme Court focused on the language of
section 6651(a)(1) and section 301.6651-1(c)(1), Income Tax
Regs., and noted the variety of conclusions that Courts of
Appeals had come to as to when a taxpayer’s reliance on a tax
adviser may constitute reasonable cause. See id. at 247-248. As
Page: Previous 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011