-8-
that the person who causes a return to be fraudulent under
section 6501 must be the person who owes the tax or against whom
the fraud penalty is asserted under section 6663.
Burden on Taxpayers
Petitioner also argues that extending the limitations period
for the fraudulent intent of the preparer would be unfairly
burdensome because it would require taxpayers to keep records
indefinitely. We disagree. Taxpayers are charged with the
knowledge, awareness, and responsibility for their tax returns.
Magill v. Commissioner, 70 T.C. 465, 479-480 (1978), affd. 651
F.2d 1233 (6th Cir. 1981); Teschner v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1997-498. The taxpayer, not the preparer, has the ultimate
responsibility to file his or her return and pay the tax due.
Kooyers v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-281. This duty cannot
generally be avoided by relying on an agent. Estate of Clause v.
Commissioner, 122 T.C. 115, 123-124 (2004); Am. Props., Inc. v.
Commissioner, 28 T.C. 1100, 1116-1117 (1957), affd. 262 F.2d 150
(9th Cir. 1958). We do not find it unduly burdensome for
taxpayers to review their returns for items that are obviously
false or incorrect. It is every taxpayer’s obligation.
Petitioner cannot hide behind an agent’s fraudulent preparation
of his returns and escape paying tax if the Government is unable
to investigate fully the fraud within the limitations period.
The Commissioner has just as much need for an extended
limitations period to investigate and examine taxpayers who sign
and allow to be filed returns that greatly overstate expenses or
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011