- 91 -
treatment of the disputed item. See sec. 1.6664-4(c), Income Tax
Regs.
In sum, for a taxpayer to rely reasonably upon advice so as
possibly to negate a section 6662(a) accuracy-related penalty
determined by the Commissioner, the taxpayer must prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that the taxpayer meets each
requirement of the following three-prong test: (1) The adviser
was a competent professional who had sufficient expertise to
justify reliance, (2) the taxpayer provided necessary and
accurate information to the adviser, and (3) the taxpayer
actually relied in good faith on the adviser’s judgment. See
Ellwest Stereo Theatres, Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1995-610; see also Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. at
115. We are unable to conclude that any of petitioners has met
any of these requirements. First, none of petitioners has
established that he, she, or it received advice from a competent
professional who had sufficient expertise to justify reliance.38
The “professional” to whom petitioners refer is their insurance
agent, Mr. Cohen. Mr. Cohen is not a tax professional, nor do we
find that he ever represented himself as such. Petitioners’ mere
reliance on Mr. Cohen was unreasonable, given the primary fact
that he was known by most of them to be involved intimately with
38 We note at the start that we heard no testimony from Dr.
McManus or Lo, their respective wives, or Ms. Sobo.
Page: Previous 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011