-14-
When a taxpayer selects a competent tax adviser and supplies
him or her with all relevant information, it is consistent with
ordinary business care and prudence to rely upon the adviser’s
professional judgment as to the taxpayer’s tax obligations.
United States v. Boyle, 469 U.S. 241, 250-251 (1985). To prove
reasonable cause due to reliance on the advice of a tax adviser,
however, the taxpayer must show that the adviser was a competent
professional with sufficient expertise to justify reliance.
Neonatology Associates, P.A. v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 43, 99
(2000), affd. 299 F.3d 221 (3d Cir. 2002); Ellwest Stereo
Theatres v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-610.
Petitioner bears the burden of proof with respect to the
defenses to the accuracy-related penalty. Higbee v.
Commissioner, supra. Petitioner has not proven that either his
attorneys or accountants, on whom he claims to have relied, were
competent professionals with sufficient expertise to justify
reliance or that he provided them with all relevant information.
See Ellwest Stereo Theatres v. Commissioner, supra. Petitioner
introduced no evidence of the identity of the attorneys on whom
he relied, much less their qualifications and expertise in terms
of tax matters. See id. We therefore do not find that
petitioner has shown these advisers to be competent professionals
with significant expertise so that his reliance on them is
justified. See Neonatology Associates, P.A. v. Commissioner,
supra; Ellwest Stereo Theatres v. Commissioner, supra.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011