- 60 -
penalties under section 6662. Rule 142(a); Richardson v.
Commissioner, 125 F.3d 551 (7th Cir. 1997), affg. T.C. Memo.
1995-554; Accardo v. Commissioner, 942 F.2d 444, 453 (7th Cir.
1991), affg. 94 T.C. 96 (1990).
A taxpayer’s good faith, reasonable reliance on the advice
of an independent professional as to the tax treatment of an item
may establish that the taxpayer was not negligent under section
6653(a) and may satisfy the reasonable cause exception of section
6664(c). United States v. Boyle, supra; sec. 1.6664-4(b), Income
Tax Regs. Whether a taxpayer reasonably relied on an independent
and competent professional requires an examination of the facts
and circumstances of his case and applicable law. See sec.
1.6664-4(b)(1), Income Tax Regs. The taxpayer must prove: (1)
The adviser was a competent professional who had sufficient
expertise to justify the taxpayer’s reliance on him; (2) the
taxpayer provided necessary and accurate information to the
adviser; and (3) the taxpayer actually relied in good faith on
the adviser’s judgment. Weis v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. 473, 487
(1990) (citing Pessin v. Commissioner, 59 T.C. 473, 489 (1972)).
In support of his determinations, respondent emphasizes
petitioner’s burden of proof as to the addition to tax and
penalties, lists numerous errors and purported errors on
petitioner’s returns, and asserts that petitioner, with the
assistance of Mr. DiMaggio, concocted an elaborate scheme to
disguise and deduct personal expenditures. Petitioner contends
Page: Previous 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011