Ernest I. Korchak - Page 27

                                       - 27 -                                         
          standing alone, is not an absolute defense to negligence; rather,           
          it is a factor to be considered.  Neonatology Associates, P.A. v.           
          Commissioner, 299 F.3d 221, 234 (3d Cir. 2002) (“the reliance               
          itself must be objectively reasonable in the sense that the                 
          taxpayer supplied the professional with all the necessary                   
          information to assess the tax matter and that the professional              
          himself does not suffer from a conflict of interest or lack of              
          expertise that the taxpayer knew of or should have known about”),           
          affg. 115 T.C. 43 (2000); Freytag v. Commissioner, supra.  In               
          order to establish that he reasonably relied on competent                   
          professional advice, the taxpayer must show that the adviser had            
          the expertise and knowledge of the pertinent facts to provide               
          informed advice on the subject matter.20  David v. Commissioner,            
          43 F.3d 788, 789-790 (2d Cir. 1995), affg. T.C. Memo. 1993-621;             


               20Petitioner relies on Thompson v. United States, 223 F.3d             
          1206 (10th Cir. 2000), to support an argument that a trier of               
          fact is obligated to accept a taxpayer’s reliance on professional           
          advice as a defense to the negligence addition to tax under sec.            
          6653.  However, Thompson does not support petitioner’s argument.            
          In Thompson, the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit upheld a            
          jury instruction that reasonable, good-faith reliance on a                  
          professional adviser constitutes a defense to the negligence                
          addition to tax under sec. 6653.  The Court of Appeals found that           
          the instruction was warranted based on (1) the evidence in the              
          case, which included testimony regarding the adviser’s expertise,           
          his investigation of the investment and his conclusions                     
          therefrom, and the information he provided the taxpayer; (2) the            
          professional relationship between the adviser and the taxpayer;             
          and (3) the rule that a taxpayer may reasonably rely on advice              
          when that advice involves the application of the adviser’s                  
          relevant expertise.  Thompson v. United States, supra at 1210-              
          1211.                                                                       





Page:  Previous  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011