Laura K. Davis, et al. - Page 24

                                       - 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