- 13 -
he advised the executrix that the information needed to be
collected and a return needed to be filed. Nevertheless, a
return was not filed until 1997.
In general, a taxpayer may establish reasonable cause for
failing to file a timely return by establishing reasonable
reliance on the advice of an accountant or attorney even if it is
later established that such advice was erroneous or mistaken.
See United States v. Boyle, 469 U.S. at 250; Estate of Paxton v.
Commissioner, 86 T.C. 785, 820 (1986); Ketteman Trust v.
Commissioner, 86 T.C. 91, 108 (1986). The rationale for this
rule is that a taxpayer is not expected to discern error in the
substantive advice of an accountant or attorney. "Ordinary
business care and prudence" do not demand that the taxpayer
challenge the professional, seek a second opinion, or try to
monitor the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code himself.
United States v. Boyle, supra at 251.
However, reliance on professional advice does not offer a
taxpayer wholesale protection against liability for the addition
to tax under section 6651(a)(1). See United States v. Boyle,
supra. As the Supreme Court has noted, Congress intended to
place upon the taxpayer the obligation of ascertaining and
meeting the statutory deadline for filing tax returns except in a
very narrow range of situations. Id. at 249-250. Accordingly,
an executor cannot avoid liability for failing to file a timely
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011