Christopher Y. Kimm - Page 10

                                       - 10 -                                         
          See Jaques v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1989-673, affd. 935 F.2d             
          104 (6th Cir. 1991); see also United States v. Boyle, supra at              
          251.  “Ordinary business care and prudence” do not demand that              
          taxpayers attempt to discern error in the substantive advice of             
          an accountant or attorney.  Id.  Taxpayers must be able to show             
          that the adviser reached his or her decisions independently.  See           
          Leonhart v. Commissioner, 414 F.2d 749, 750 (4th Cir. 1969),                
          affg. T.C. Memo. 1968-98.  In the instant case, Mr. Hathaway is a           
          C.P.A. and an attorney certified in taxation law by the                     
          California State Bar, Board of Legal Certification.                         
          Additionally, petitioner and petitioner’s father fully disclosed            
          the facts surrounding the transaction to Mr. Hathaway and                   
          provided him the $30,000 check petitioner had issued to his                 
          father for consulting services.  Based on this information, Mr.             
          Hathaway advised both petitioner and petitioner’s father that the           
          appropriate income tax reporting was for petitioner’s father to             
          report the $30,000 payment as compensation income and for                   
          petitioner to claim a $30,000 deduction.  Mr. Hathaway prepared             
          the returns for both petitioner and petitioner’s father                     
          consistent with this advice.  Both petitioner and petitioner’s              
          father reasonably relied on the advice of their tax adviser in              
          reporting the transaction on their respective returns.                      
          Accordingly, petitioner is not liable for the section 6662(a)               
          accuracy-related penalty.                                                   






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

Last modified: May 25, 2011