- 40 -
factor is the extent of the taxpayer’s effort to assess
the taxpayer’s proper tax liability. * * * [Sec.
1.6664-4(b)(1), Income Tax Regs.]
Reliance upon the advice of a tax professional may, but does
not necessarily, demonstrate reasonable cause and good faith in
the context of the section 6662(a) penalty. Id.; see also United
States v. Boyle, 469 U.S. 241, 251 (1985); Freytag v.
Commissioner, supra at 888. Such reliance is not an absolute
defense, but it is a factor to be considered. Freytag v.
Commissioner, supra at 888.
In order for this factor to be given dispositive weight, the
taxpayer claiming reliance on a professional must show, at
minimum: “(1) The adviser was a competent professional who had
sufficient expertise to justify reliance, (2) the taxpayer
provided necessary and accurate information to the adviser, and
(3) the taxpayer actually relied in good faith on the adviser’s
judgment.” Neonatology Associates, P.A. v. Commissioner, 115
T.C. 43, 99 (2000), affd. 299 F.3d 221 (3d Cir. 2002); see also,
e.g., Charlotte’s Office Boutique, Inc. v. Commissioner, 425
F.3d 1203, 1212 & n.8 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting verbatim and with
approval the above three-prong test), affg. 121 T.C. 89 (2003);
Westbrook v. Commissioner, 68 F.3d 868, 881 (5th Cir. 1995),
affg. T.C. Memo. 1993-634; Cramer v. Commissioner, 101 T.C. 225,
251 (1993), affd. 64 F.3d 1406 (9th Cir. 1995); Ma-Tran Corp. v.
Commissioner, 70 T.C. 158, 173 (1978); Pessin v. Commissioner, 59
Page: Previous 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011