Thouron v US: Third Circuit holds reliance on counsel may relieve penalties for late payment of taxes
By Laura Gavioli and Denise Mudigere
In Thouron v United States, No. 13-1603 (3d Cir. May 13, 2014), the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that reliance on tax advice may establish a reasonable cause defence to failure to pay penalties (Slip. Op. at 9.)
This case arises out of estate taxes originally due in 2007. In his will, the decedent appointed a friend as executor of the estate and the friend hired a tax attorney to advise the estate on tax matters. Relying on the advice of the attorney, the estate timely filed an extension for time to file the estate return and remitted a partial payment, but did not file for an extension to pay the remainder of the tax due. The estate claimed its attorney advised it that the extension to pay was not due until the return was filed and that the tax due would be deferred under IRC section 6,166 because the bulk of the estate’s assets were illiquid. The estate further claimed that the attorney advised it that no penalty would be imposed. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) assessed the mandatory penalties of IRC section 6,651 and the estate filed a refund claim in district court asserting reasonable cause and reliance on its tax expert as a penalty defence.
The district court for the District of Pennsylvania held that reliance on the tax adviser was not reasonable cause for the late payment of the estate taxes and granted summary judgment in the government’s favour. To support its conclusion, the lower court relied heavily on United States v Boyle, 469 US 241 (1985), a Supreme Court decision holding that an estate could not rely on its attorney for the ministerial task of timely filing a return. The district court read Boyle to preclude any finding of reasonable cause based on reliance on an expert or other agent in failure-to-file and failure-to-pay cases…
Click on the link below to read the rest of the Dentons briefing.
News from Dentons
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Dentons
‘Inversion’ transactions are nothing new, and the current proceedings appear to be just another replay of earlier games of tag between the government and US multinationals.
In Devon Canada Corporation v The Queen, the issue is whether the taxpayer may deduct $20,884,041 paid to cancel issued stock options.
Analysis from The Lawyer
The continent’s boom in natural resources and renewable energy is sparking an infrastructure drive
Shearman & Sterling is making its presence felt in the City, squaring up to magic circle firms and looking to muscle in on key relationships. Private equity house Bridgepoint is one outfit that has had its head turned by the US firm.