- 8 -
gave Messrs. Roisen and Helman no advice on which they could
rely. They have failed to show that he advised them that, as a
matter of law, it was not necessary to file timely the estate tax
return. Moreover, their reliance on him to file the estate tax
return was an impermissible delegation of their responsibility as
executors. Respondent adds: “If the executor is unable to obtain
complete information about the decedent[’s] assets, he must still
file a timely tax return based on the information available at
that time.”
Petitioner relies principally on the argument that Messrs.
Roisen and Helman had reasonable cause “because it is abundantly
clear that they relied on the advice of their attorney not to
file at the time the return was due.”
III. Discussion
A. Introduction
In United State v. Boyle, supra at 249-250, the Supreme
Court stated:
Congress has placed the burden of prompt filing
[of an estate tax return] on the executor, not on some
agent or employee of the executor. * * * Congress
intended to place upon the taxpayer an obligation to
ascertain the statutory deadline and then to meet that
deadline, except in a very narrow range of situations.
The Court recognized that engaging an attorney to assist in
probate proceedings is “plainly an exercise of the ‘ordinary
business care and prudence’ prescribed by [section
301.6651-1(c)(1), Proced. & Admin. Regs.]”. Id. at 250.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007