- 33 -
with the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, and that he
took a position that was well founded in law and fact.
Good faith reliance on the advice of counsel or a qualified
accountant can, in certain circumstances, be a defense to the
accuracy-related penalty for negligence. See Schwalbach v.
Commissioner, 111 T.C. 215, 230-231 (1998); Ewing v.
Commissioner, 91 T.C. 396, 423-424 (1988), affd. without
published opinion 940 F.2d 1534 (9th Cir. 1991).
Petitioner consulted with his accountant who prepared his
tax returns for the years in issue. Petitioner’s reliance on the
representations of his accountant was reasonable. We conclude
that petitioner is not liable for the accuracy-related penalties
imposed under section 6662.
We have considered all of the remaining arguments that have
been made by petitioner for a result contrary to that expressed
herein, and, to the extent not discussed above, they are without
merit.
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered
for respondent as to the
deficiencies and for
petitioner as to the
accuracy-related penalties.
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Last modified: May 25, 2011