- 7 -
Young v. Commissioner, 110 T.C. 297, 317 (1998); American
Properties, Inc. v. Commissioner, supra; secs. 1.6662-3(a),
1.6664-4(a), Income Tax Regs. In order to qualify for this
exception, a taxpayer must prove by a preponderance of the
evidence that (1) the adviser was a competent professional who
had sufficient expertise to justify the taxpayer’s reliance on
him, (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 Zabolotny v. Commissioner,
97 T.C. 385, 400-401 (1991), affd. in part and revd. in part on
other grounds 7 F.3d 774 (8th Cir. 1993); see also Rule 142(a);
Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933); cf. Patin v.
Commissioner, 88 T.C. 1086, 1129-1131 (1987), affd. without
published opinion sub nom. Hatheway v. Commissioner, 856 F.2d 186
(4th Cir. 1988), affd. sub nom. Skeen v. Commissioner, 864 F.2d
93 (9th Cir. 1989), affd. sub nom. Gomberg v. Commissioner, 868
F.2d 865 (6th Cir. 1989); Coldwater Seafood Corp. v.
Commissioner, 69 T.C. 966, 974 (1978); New York State Association
of Real Estate Bds. Group Ins. Fund v. Commissioner, 54 T.C.
1325, 1336 (1970).
Petitioners contend that their reliance on Mr. Baker
protects them from liability for the section 6662(a) penalty. We
disagree. Petitioners hired Mr. Baker because petitioner’s
colleagues recommended him for his knowledge of trusts and their
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011