- 53 -
returns for the years in issue and throughout the trial, however,
petitioner continued to assert that the trusts were separate
entities for Federal income tax purposes. Respondent contends
that petitioner’s position was frivolous, and that we should
impose sanctions on petitioner under section 6673(a) for
maintaining that position.
Petitioner argues that we should not impose sanctions
because he maintained his position in good faith and in reliance
on the promoter of the trusts, Henkell (who, petitioner claims,
was a “leader in the trust business” and “master-trust maker of
his time” before being fined and enjoined from providing trust
advice in United States v. Estate Pres. Servs., 202 F.3d 1093
(9th Cir. 2000)).
The positions taken by petitioner before this Court were
taken and continued long after Henkell had been fined and
enjoined from further promoting his abusive trusts. Respondent
provided petitioner with copious citations of our prior cases
holding trusts like his to be invalid abusive trusts.
Moreover, as discussed above in connection with the
accuracy-related penalties, reliance on the opinion of a shelter
promoter regarding the validity of the shelter is, as a general
matter, not reasonable reliance. Goldman v. Commissioner, 39
F.3d at 480; Neonatology Associates, P.A. v. Commissioner, 115
T.C. at 99; Marine v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. at 992-993. Such
Page: Previous 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011