- 24 -
computer records in October 1993 provided no evidence
of fraud because an assessment occurs on the date an
authorized official signs a summary record of
assessment containing the taxpayer’s assessment rather
than the date the assessment is posted to the IRS
computerized record system. * * *
Indeed, Mr. Davis neglects even to discuss Ms. Osborn or her
“cycle post date” theory in his written responses to our orders
to show cause, which suggests to us that he no longer attaches
any value to her testimony or theory. See Nicklaus v.
Commissioner, 117 T.C. 117, 120 n.4 (2001) (concluding that
taxpayers abandoned arguments and contentions asserted prior to
the filing of their brief where they failed to advance those
arguments and contentions on brief). We see no merit in his
affirmative defense.
Mr. Davis’s inability to show the merit of any averment,
claim, or argument advanced by him leads us to the conclusion
that he initiated and has maintained these proceedings primarily
for delay, and we so find. Indeed, he was sanctioned for just
such conduct (and fined $25,000) in the proceeding that he
initiated to contest respondent’s determination of his underlying
tax liabilities for 1997 and 1998. A taxpayer’s good faith
reliance on the advice of counsel is not a defense to the
imposition of a penalty under section 6673(a)(1)(B). See Branch
v. IRS, 846 F.2d 36, 37 (8th Cir. 1988). Nor need we excuse a
taxpayer’s failure to review pleadings and other documents filed
on his behalf. The purpose of section 6673 is to compel
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007