- 30 -
factor is the extent of the taxpayer’s effort to assess
the taxpayer’s proper tax liability. * * * [Sec.
1.6664-4(b)(1), Income Tax. Regs.]
Reliance upon the advice of an expert tax preparer may, but
does not necessarily, demonstrate reasonable cause and good faith
in the context of the section 6662(a) penalty. Id.; see also
United States v. Boyle, 469 U.S. 241, 251 (1985); Freytag v.
Commissioner, supra at 888. Such reliance is not an absolute
defense, but it is a factor to be considered. Freytag v.
Commissioner, supra at 888.
In order for this factor to be given dispositive weight, the
taxpayer claiming reliance on a professional must show, at
minimum, that (1) the preparer was supplied with correct
information and (2) the incorrect return was a result of the
preparer’s error. See, e.g., Westbrook v. Commissioner, 68 F.3d
868, 881 (5th Cir. 1995), affg. T.C. Memo. 1993-634; Cramer v.
Commissioner, 101 T.C. 225, 251 (1993), affd. 64 F.3d 1406 (9th
Cir. 1995); Ma-Tran Corp. v. Commissioner, 70 T.C. 158, 173
(1978); Pessin v. Commissioner, 59 T.C. 473, 489 (1972).
As previously indicated, section 7491(c) places the burden
of production on the Commissioner. The notice of deficiency
issued to petitioner generally asserted applicability of the
section 6662(a) penalty on account of negligence or disregard,
substantial understatement, and/or substantial valuation
misstatement. See sec. 6662(b). Respondent at trial and on
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011