Paul R. Peete - Page 6

                                        - 6 -                                         
          penalty, petitioner must establish that he had reasonable cause             
          and acted in good faith with respect to the claimed Schedule C              
          loss.                                                                       
               The general rule is that taxpayers have a duty to file                 
          complete and accurate tax returns and cannot avoid the duty by              
          placing responsibility with an agent.  United States v. Boyle,              
          469 U.S. 241, 252 (1985); Metra Chem Corp. v. Commissioner, 88              
          T.C. 654, 662 (1987).  However, in limited situations, the good             
          faith reliance on the advice of an independent, competent                   
          professional in the preparation of the tax return can satisfy the           
          reasonable cause and good faith exception.  United States v.                
          Boyle, supra at 250-251; Weis v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. 473, 487             
          (1990).  The reliance must be reasonable, in good faith, and                
          based on full disclosure.  United States v. Boyle, supra at 250-            
          251; Weis v. Commissioner, supra.                                           
               Petitioner testified that the activity reported on Schedule            
          C was related to a pyramid scheme run by “The Tax People”.                  
          Petitioner testified that he was recruited by participants in the           
          scheme and attended a seminar describing the activity.                      
          Petitioner initially invested $300 and then paid $25 per month to           
          participate in the activity.  The only way for petitioner to                
          accumulate money was if he recruited other people to join the               

               5(...continued)                                                        
          are relatively minor in amount and do not impact the finding that           
          there was a substantial understatement of income tax.                       





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

Last modified: May 25, 2011