- 68 -
tax matters” and relying on the accountant who prepared the
returns.
Although the Court is not unsympathetic as regards medical
difficulties encountered by Mrs. Richardson, the record contains
no evidence to corroborate any specifics regarding her illness or
level of incapacity during the relevant 1996 to 1997 period. In
fact, the record conflicts with any allegation that her
involvement in HGAMC or HGRCT was materially curtailed.
Furthermore, with respect to tax matters and reliance on a
professional, the Court in other contexts and as previously
explained has required the taxpayer to 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. at 99.
Here, a defense of justifiable reliance rings hollow in
light of Mr. Graham’s connection to the Aegis scheme and the
complete absence of evidence to show that Mrs. Richardson made
any attempt to review the returns in a meaningful way, ask
questions, etc. After all, in light of Mrs. Richardson’s
extensive involvement, including attendance at the June 27, 1997,
meeting addressing Notice 97-24, 1997-1 C.B. 409, and at a later
section 6700 conference with the IRS, it is equally likely on the
Page: Previous 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011