- 15 -
to her in 2003 by Dr. Perkins was not includable in her 2003
income for Federal income tax purposes and (2) she reasonably
relied on professional advice in failing to report the $26,400
paid to her in 2003 by Dr. Perkins as alimony income. Because,
as explained below, we agree with petitioner that she has
satisfied the requirements of the reasonable reliance exception,
petitioner is not liable for a section 6662 penalty.9
With respect to the first prong of the Neonatology test, we
conclude that petitioner has established that her attorney was a
competent professional who had sufficient expertise to justify
reliance. Respondent does not dispute our conclusion.
See Neonatology Associates, P.A. v. Commissioner, supra at 99;
see also United States v. Boyle, supra at 250-251.
With respect to the second prong of the Neonatology test,
we are satisfied that the evidence of record, particularly
attorney Miller’s testimony, which reflects that attorney Miller
consulted with attorney Konvalinka in 2004 regarding the
taxability of the payments at issue in this case, demonstrates
that petitioner provided necessary and accurate information in a
timely manner to her tax adviser, attorney Konvalinka, regarding
9 Because we conclude that the reasonable reliance exception
applies here, we need not discuss the merits of petitioner’s
argument regarding the substantial authority exception.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008