- 85 -
significantly contributed to his failure to accurately and
completely report income and file returns.72
The record is replete with indications that Burton did not
supply complete and/or correct information to his return
preparers. He cannot hide behind the shield of ignorance or
reliance. Indeed, both Bradac and Toibin testified repeatedly
that they relied in large part on Burton’s representations and
characterizations. For example, Bradac testified that with
respect to the automobile and truck deductions, he relied
completely on Burton’s representations that the correct
allocation between personal and business use was made.
Additionally, Bradac testified that he had not seen a copy of the
royalty agreement before he commenced preparation of ERG’s and
NPI’s returns. We sustain respondent’s determination of
negligence penalties in this case against the Bensons.
Likewise, petitioners argue on brief that “Burton testified
he was responsible for getting his son’s returns completed and
filed for 1993 and 1994, and * * * accuracy related penalties
should not inure to the sons for what the father undertook to
do.” We disagree. “[T]he taxpayer must bear the consequences of
any negligent errors committed by its agent.” Ellwest Stereo
Theater v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-610 (citing Logan Lumber
72On brief, petitioners argue: “there is no question that
Burton neglected his responsibilities to enlist new accounting
help and to keep up with required tax return filings.”
Page: Previous 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011