- 9 -
Petitioners seek to negate the impact of the foregoing by
arguing that they did not receive the second W-2 from Autocar and
by professing reliance on their tax preparer to prepare an
accurate return.5 Yet, petitioners did not compare the $7,891 of
wages reported on the first W-2 from Autocar with the total
“year-to-date” wages reported on the final pay stub from Autocar.
Indeed, petitioners did not even look at the first W-2.
Furthermore, after the 2001 return had been prepared by the
preparer, petitioners did not compare the $7,891 of wages
reported on the return with the total “year-to-date” wages
reported on the final pay stub from Autocar.
We have consistently held that blind reliance on a return
preparer is not a defense; rather, the taxpayer is generally
required to review the return before signing and filing it.
E.g., Metra Chem Corp. v. Commissioner, 88 T.C. 654, 662 (1987);
Bronson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-260; Osborne v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-11; Bilzerian v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2001-187. Furthermore, we cannot conceive of any reason
why these principles should not apply in the present case.
If Mr. McKee had even looked at the first W-2 from Autocar,
he would have been alerted to the fact that the W-2 included only
about one-third of his income from Autocar. See and compare sec.
5 It should be recalled that the second W-2 from Autocar
reported wages paid to Mr. McKee in the amount of $13,775.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011