- 6 -
Sec. 32(d). Unfortunately for petitioner, he did not do so.7
In view of the foregoing, we sustain respondent’s
determination on this issue.
C. Conclusion
We are satisfied that petitioner is a conscientious taxpayer
who tried to fulfill his Federal income tax obligations by
securing the assistance of a professional tax return preparer.
Unfortunately for petitioner, his preparer gave him erroneous
advice. Although this fact might have insulated petitioner from
liability for a penalty if respondent had determined one, a
taxpayer’s good-faith reliance on a professional tax preparer
does not insulate the taxpayer from liability for the underlying
tax itself.
Reviewed and adopted as the report of the Small Tax Case
Division.
7 There is nothing in the record to suggest that, as of the
date that respondent sent the notice of deficiency, petitioner
and Rita Palayo had attempted to file a joint return for the
taxable year 2000. Inasmuch as petitioner filed a petition in
respect of such notice, he is precluded from filing a joint
return for that year. See sec. 6013(b)(2); cf. Phillips v.
Commissioner, 86 T.C. 433, 441 n.7 (1986), affd. on this issue
851 F.2d 1492 (D.C. Cir. 1988).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011