Michael White - Page 9

                                        - 8 -                                         

          Cir. 1990), affd. 501 U.S. 868 (1991).  Reliance on a                       
          professional adviser, standing alone, is not an absolute defense            
          to negligence; it is only one factor to be considered.  In order            
          for reliance on a professional adviser to relieve a taxpayer from           
          the negligence penalty, the taxpayer must establish that the                
          professional adviser on whom he or she relied had the expertise             
          and knowledge of the relevant facts to provide informed advice on           
          the subject matter.  Freytag v. Commissioner, supra at 888.                 
               Petitioner made no effort to ascertain the professional                
          background and qualifications of his return preparer, Mr.                   
          Beltran.  He failed to examine the returns prepared by Mr.                  
          Beltran, except to ascertain the amount of the refunds he could             
          expect.  Petitioner did not look beyond that, as he was obviously           
          interested more in the recommendation he had received on Mr.                
          Beltran that he was a "good guy" and "can certainly save you a              
          lot of money."  The Court is satisfied that petitioner knew that            
          he could only claim deductions that could be substantiated, and,            
          when his returns reflected refunds considerably higher than what            
          he normally would have received, his failure to examine the                 
          returns or to have someone examine the returns for him to                   
          ascertain the reasons for such overpayments, constitutes                    
          negligence or disregard of rules or regulations.  Petitioner                
          consciously failed to examine the returns because he knew that              
          the returns must have contained information that was false.  With           

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011