- 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