- 18 -
the reasonableness of the taxpayer’s actions in light of the
taxpayer’s experience and the nature of the investment. See Henry
Schwartz Corp. v. Commissioner, 60 T.C. 728, 740 (1973); see also
Sacks v. Commissioner, 82 F.3d 918, 920 (9th Cir. 1996) (whether a
taxpayer is negligent in claiming a tax deduction “depends upon
both the legitimacy of the underlying investment, and due care in
the claiming of the deduction.”), affg. T.C. Memo. 1994-217;
Turner v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-363. In this regard, the
determination of negligence is highly factual.
Under some circumstances, a taxpayer may avoid liability for
negligence if reasonable reliance on a competent professional
adviser is shown. See United States v. Boyle, 469 U.S. 241, 250-
251 (1985); Freytag v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 849, 888 (1987),
affd. 904 F.2d 1011 (5th Cir. 1990), affd. on another issue 501
U.S. 868 (1991). However, reliance on professional advice,
standing alone, is not an absolute defense to negligence, but
rather a factor to be considered. See Freytag v. Commissioner,
supra. For reliance on professional advice to excuse a taxpayer
from negligence, the taxpayer must show that the professional had
the requisite expertise, as well as knowledge of the pertinent
facts, to provide informed advice on the subject matter. See
David v. Commissioner, 43 F.3d 788, 789-790 (2d Cir. 1995), affg.
T.C. Memo. 1993-621; Goldman v. Commissioner, 39 F.3d 402, 407 (2d
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011