- 74 -
shown that there was a reasonable cause for such portion and that
the taxpayer acted in good faith with respect to such portion.”
Regulations interpreting section 6664(c) state:
The determination of whether a taxpayer acted with
reasonable cause and in good faith is made on a case-
by-case basis, taking into account all pertinent facts
and circumstances. * * * Generally, the most important
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 a tax professional 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: “(1) The adviser was a competent professional who had
sufficient expertise to justify reliance, (2) the taxpayer
provided necessary and accurate information to the adviser, and
(3) the taxpayer actually relied in good faith on the adviser’s
judgment.” Neonatology Associates, P.A. v. Commissioner, 115
T.C. 43, 99 (2000), affd. 299 F.3d 221 (3d Cir. 2002); see also,
e.g., Charlotte’s Office Boutique, Inc. v. Commissioner, 425
F.3d 1203, 1212 & n.8 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting verbatim and with
approval the above three-prong test), affg. 121 T.C. 89 (2003);
Page: Previous 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011