- 78 -
from the problems raised by the first two criteria. Mr. Leo was
hired to reconstruct records and to prepare corrected returns, so
petitioners at that time were well aware of serious deficiencies
in Mr. Goltz’s performance in these respects. To have taken a
hands-off approach at that juncture, relying on Mr. Goltz to
provide any necessary underlying information and explanations,
would not seem consistent with ordinary care and prudence. It
further would seem to negate a claim that reliance on the
resultant product could be in good faith. Mr. Goltz would appear
even less likely than petitioners in this scenario to recall, for
example, verbal descriptions that had at one time elucidated the
generic descriptions in receipts, invoices, or credit card
statements. Yet the record contains no suggestion that
petitioners assisted in the reconstruction in any meaningful way.
On these facts, petitioners have failed to establish that
they met each and every requirement necessary for successful
imposition of a reliance defense. Petitioners remain liable for
the section 6662(a) accuracy-related penalties.
The Court has considered all other arguments made by the
parties and, to the extent not specifically addressed herein, has
concluded that they are without merit or are moot. To reflect
the foregoing and concessions by the parties,
Decisions will be entered
under Rule 155.
Page: Previous 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 Last modified: May 25, 2011