- 10 -
return, even if such advice was mistaken. United States v.
Boyle, supra at 250. Petitioner contends that he is not liable
for the addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1) because he
relied on Dunstan, TurboTax, and respondent.
There is no evidence that Dunstan is an accountant,
attorney, or tax professional or that Dunstan told petitioner
that he was not required to file a return for 2000. Petitioner
contends that his TurboTax computer software showed that he was
due a refund for 2000. However, petitioner did not show what
information he entered. Petitioner did not offer any evidence
showing that he relied on advice from respondent in deciding not
to file a return for 2000. We conclude that petitioner has not
shown reasonable cause for failure to file his Federal income tax
return for 2000.
c. Increased Amount of the Addition to Tax Under
Section 6651(a)(1)
Respondent conceded that petitioner is not liable for the
addition to tax under section 6651(a)(2) for 2000. Thus, section
6651(c)(1) (reducing the amount imposed by section 6651(a)(1) to
4.5 percent for any month in which both section 6651(a)(1) and
(2) are imposed) does not apply, and the 5-percent rate does.
Petitioner’s taxable income for 2000 was substantially
greater than the $2,800 personal exemption plus the $4,400
standard deduction. Thus, petitioner was required to file a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011