- 11 - return and included in Tesco’s corporate return.7 b. Accuracy-Related Penalty on Other 1991 Items and 1992 Items Petitioner offered no evidence or argument to excuse the other errors made in his 1991 and 1992 returns.8 Petitioner’s mere reliance on his accountant to prepare correct returns is not “reasonable cause”. Sec. 1.6664-4(b)(1), Income Tax Regs. (“Reliance on * * * the advice of a professional tax advisor * * * does not necessarily demonstrate reasonable cause and good faith”). As in Ma-Tran Corp. v. Commissioner, 70 T.C. 158, 173 (1978), “No evidence was presented to show the Court that * * * [petitioner] supplied the accountant with the correct information or that the filing of the incorrect returns was the result of the accountant’s error.” Petitioner has failed to meet his burden of proving that the remaining errors were the result of “reasonable cause” or that he acted in “good faith” with respect to them. We uphold respondent’s determination that petitioner is liable for the accuracy-related penalty on the portion of the 1991 deficiency attributable to the other items and on the 1992 deficiency in its entirety. 7In a separate case before this Court concerning Tesco, docket No. 10966-97, the Commissioner has already reduced Tesco’s liability by the $32,755 which was erroneously included in Tesco’s return for its fiscal year ending July 31, 1992, and which is now being charged to petitioner in the case at hand. 8See supra note 3.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011