- 21 -
neglect. In this connection, petitioner alleged in the petition:
Petitioner demonstrated prudence by engaging a CPA to
advise him on his personal and business tax matters.
The Petitioner relied on the advice of his former CPA,
who gave assurance that application of subsequent
taxable years’ tax overpayments to the Petitioner’s
1999 underpayment would result in elimination of his
tax liability for 1999. While this advice was clearly
erroneous, the Petitioner had no way of knowing this
fact and was in no condition to challenge this advice.
Had petitioner been correctly advised by this former
CPA, Petitioner would have taken the correct action,
request that this be considered in determining the
appropriateness of the application of the failure to
pay penalty. [Reproduced literally.]
Assuming arguendo that a certified public accountant advised
petitioner that he did not have to pay the tax shown due in the
1999 return when that return was sent to respondent around March
18, 2003, we reject any argument by petitioner that any reliance
by him on such advice establishes that his failure to pay timely
the tax shown in that return was due to reasonable cause and not
to willful neglect. The last date prescribed for the timely
payment of tax for petitioner’s taxable year 1999 was April 15,
2000. Secs. 6072(a), 6151(a). The standard for reasonable cause
under section 6651(a)(2) is a one-time test to be passed or
failed as of the due date for the tax payment.10 In order to
establish that his failure to pay timely the tax shown in the
1999 return was due to reasonable cause and not to willful
neglect, petitioner must show that reasonable cause existed on
10See Estate of Hartsell v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-
211.
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011