- 93 -
or relied on one. See Rule 143(b) (statements on brief are not
evidence).39
We also are unpersuaded by petitioners’ assertion that they
relied reasonably on the correctness of the contents of their
returns simply because their returns were prepared by certified
public accountants. The mere fact that a certified public
accountant has prepared a tax return does not mean that he or she
has opined on any or all of the items reported therein. In this
regard, the record contains no evidence that, possibly with the
exception of Dr. Hirshkowitz, any of petitioners asked a
competent accountant to opine on the legitimacy of his, her, or
its treatment for the contributions, or that an accountant in
fact did opine on that topic. In the case of Dr. Hirshkowitz,
the record does reveal that he showed his accountant something on
the SC VEBA and that the accountant expressed some reservations
as to the advertised tax treatment of the SC VEBA, but no
reservations which Dr. Hirshkowitz considered “major”, as he put
it. The record does not reveal what exactly Dr. Hirshkowitz
showed his accountant as to the SC VEBA or the particular
reservations which the accountant expressed. Nor do we know
whether a reasonable person would consider those reservations to
39 Because petitioners have failed the first prong of the
three-prong test set forth above, we do not set forth a copious
discussion of our holdings as to the other two prongs. Suffice
it to say that none of petitioners has met his, her, or its
burden of proof as to those prongs.
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