- 9 -
Cir. 1987). The taxpayer has the burden of proving that the
Commissioner’s determination is erroneous and that he did what a
reasonably prudent person would have done under the
circumstances. Rule 142(a); Hansen v. Commissioner, supra; Hall
v. Commissioner, 729 F.2d 632, 635 (9th Cir. 1984), affg. T.C.
Memo. 1982-337; Bixby v. Commissioner, 58 T.C. 757, 791 (1972).
At trial,5 petitioner claimed that he reasonably relied on
representations made in the offering materials and on his
accountant, whom he described as a knowledgeable and experienced
tax adviser. Petitioner argued that he did not need to
independently investigate the investment because, as an investor
of moderate means, he was entitled to rely upon the offering
materials and the expertise of his accountant,6 citing Heasley v.
Commissioner, 902 F.2d 380, 383-384 (5th Cir. 1990), revg. T.C.
Memo. 1988-408. In support of his position, petitioner also
cited United States v. Boyle, 469 U.S. 241, 250-251 (1985), in
which the United States Supreme Court stated:
When an accountant or attorney advises a taxpayer
on a matter of tax law, such as whether a liability
5The parties agreed not to submit posttrial briefs in this
case. After the trial, petitioner presented a closing argument,
and respondent submitted a memorandum of authorities with the
consent of petitioner.
6Petitioners also argued that we should abate the interest
accrued on the 1982 deficiency. See sec. 6404(e). Petitioners,
however, have not complied with the statutory requirements for
abatement. Whether petitioners are entitled to abatement of
interest is not properly before us. See id.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011