- 43 -
Computer Corp. v. Commissioner, 113 T.C. 214, 226 (1999); sec.
1.6664-4(b)(1), Income Tax Regs.
Petitioners contend that they are not liable for the
accuracy-related penalties for negligence because they relied on
their accountant for the preparation of their returns. Thus, in
effect, petitioners argue that they had reasonable cause and
acted in good faith by treating the items as they did on their
returns for 1991 and 1992. Petitioners bear the burden of
proving facts showing good faith and reasonable cause. See Rule
142(a).
Although a taxpayer may avoid liability for the addition to
tax for negligence if he or she shows a reasonable reliance in
good faith on a competent and experienced return preparer,
reliance on professional advice, standing alone, is not an
absolute defense to negligence. See United States v. Boyle,
supra at 250-251; Freytag v. Commissioner, supra at 888; see also
sec. 1.6664-4(b)(1), Income Tax Regs. Rather, it is a factor to
be considered. See Freytag v. Commissioner, supra at 888. To
show good faith reliance on the advice of a competent adviser,
the taxpayer must establish that he or she provided the return
preparer with complete and accurate information and that an
incorrect return was a result of the preparer's mistakes. See
Westbrook v. Commissioner, 68 F.3d 868, 881 (5th Cir. 1995),
Page: Previous 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011