- 29 -
the expertise and knowledge of the pertinent facts necessary to
render such an opinion. Barlow v. Commissioner, 301 F.3d 714,
724 (6th Cir. 2002), affg. T.C. Memo. 2000-339; Freytag v.
Commissioner, supra at 888.
1. Reliance on the Hoyt Organization and Partners
Petitioner argues that he should escape the negligence
penalty because he relied in good faith on various individuals
with respect to the Hoyt investment: Mr. Hoyt and other members
of the Hoyt organization, tax professionals hired by the Hoyt
organization, and other Hoyt investor-partners.
It is clear in this case that the advice petitioner received
from the Hoyt organization, if any, concerning the partnership
loss deduction that resulted in the underpayment underlying the
penalty was not objectively reasonable. First, we note that
petitioner has not established that he received any advice at all
concerning the deduction. Although petitioner relied on Mr. Hoyt
and his organization to prepare the return, petitioner does not
even suggest that he directly questioned Mr. Hoyt or his
organization about the nature of the tax claims. Instead, when
petitioner signed the return, he did not question or seek advice
from anyone concerning the large partnership loss at issue--he
merely assumed the items on the return were proper.
Nevertheless, assuming arguendo that petitioner did receive
advice from Mr. Hoyt or someone within his organization, any such
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011