- 19 -
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, in order for a taxpayer's reliance to
be reasonable, the taxpayer must show, inter alia, that the
adviser was a competent individual and that the taxpayer actually
relied in good faith on the advice. E.g., Tietig v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-190, on appeal (11th Cir., Mar. 26,
2002).
In the present case, petitioner has failed to show either
that his “consultants” were competent professionals or that he
relied on their advice in good faith. Rather, it is clear that
the “advice” rendered was nothing more than the type of tax
protester rhetoric that has long been held to be frivolous and
groundless. E.g., Rowlee v. Commissioner, 80 T.C. 1111, 1120
(1983) (rejecting taxpayer's argument that he is not a "person
liable" for tax); Ebert v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1991-629
(rejecting taxpayer's argument that there is no section of the
Internal Revenue Code making a taxpayer liable for tax), affd.
without published opinion 986 F.2d 1427 (10th Cir. 1993).
Further, we are not convinced that petitioner relied on this
“advice” in good faith.11
11 See Diaz v. Commissioner, 58 T.C. 560, 564 (1972)
(continued...)
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011