- 7 -
prudence, relies on the adviser’s professional judgment as to the
taxpayer’s tax obligations. Sec. 6664(c); United States v.
Boyle, 469 U.S. 241, 250-251 (1985); Estate of Young v.
Commissioner, 110 T.C. 297, 317 (1998); Am. Props., Inc. v.
Commissioner, 28 T.C. 1100 (1957), affd. 262 F.2d 150 (9th Cir.
1958). To establish reasonable cause, the taxpayer must prove by
a preponderance of the evidence that: (1) The adviser was a
competent professional who had sufficient expertise to justify
the taxpayer’s reliance on him or her, (2) the taxpayer provided
necessary and accurate information to the adviser, and (3) the
taxpayer 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); Bowen v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 2001-247.
Petitioners hired Mr. Borrelli after a relative’s
recommendation and a few telephone conversations in which Mr.
Borrelli cited some Code provisions. Petitioners introduced no
evidence regarding Mr. Borrelli’s credentials or his experience
in preparing tax returns. Mr. Borrelli was not called as a
witness at trial. In short, petitioners failed to introduce any
credible evidence that Mr. Borrelli was a competent tax adviser
with sufficient expertise to justify their reliance.
We now turn to whether petitioners provided necessary and
accurate information to Mr. Borrelli. Petitioners sent Mr.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011