United States v. Boyle

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Citation469 U.S. 241,105 S.Ct. 687,83 L.Ed.2d 622
Docket NumberNo. 83-1266,83-1266
PartiesUNITED STATES v. BOYLE, Executor of the Estate of Boyle
Decision Date09 January 1985
Syllabus

Respondent, executor of his mother's will, retained an attorney to handle the estate. Respondent provided the attorney with all relevant information and records for filing a federal estate tax return, which under § 6075(a) of the Internal Revenue Code was required to be filed within nine months of the decedent's death. Respondent inquired of the attorney from time to time as to the preparation of the return and was assured that it would be filed on time. But the return was filed three months late, apparently because of a clerical oversight in omitting the filing date from the attorney's calendar. Acting pursuant to § 6651(a)(1) of the Code, which provides a penalty for failure to file a return when due "unless it is shown that such failure is due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect," the Internal Revenue Service assessed a penalty for the late filing. Respondent paid the penalty and filed a suit in Federal District Court for a refund, contending that the penalty was unjustified because his failure to file the return on time was "due to reasonable cause," i.e., reliance on his attorney. The District Court agreed and granted summary judgment for respondent. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Held: The failure to make a timely filing of a tax return is not excused by the taxpayer's reliance on an agent, and such reliance is not "reasonable cause" for a late filing under § 6651(a)(1). While engaging an attorney to assist in probate proceedings is plainly an exercise of the "ordinary business care and prudence" that the relevant Treasury Regulation requires the taxpayer to demonstrate to excuse a late filing, this does not answer the question presented here. To say that it was "reasonable" for respondent to assume that the attorney would meet the statutory deadline may resolve the matter as between them, but not with respect to the respondent's obligation under that statute. It requires no special training or effort on the taxpayer's part to ascertain a deadline and ensure that it is met. That the attorney, as respondent's agent, was expected to attend to the matter does not relieve the principal of his duty to meet the deadline. Pp. 245-252.

710 F.2d 1251 (CA7 1983), reversed.

Albert G. Lauber, Jr., Washington, D.C., for petitioner.

Thomas E. Davies, Morton, Ill., for respondent.

Chief Justice BURGER delivered the opinion of the Court.

We granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the Circuits on whether a taxpayer's reliance on an attorney to prepare and file a tax return constitutes "reasonable cause" under § 6651(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code, so as to defeat a statutory penalty incurred because of a late filing.

I
A.

Respondent, Robert W. Boyle, was appointed executor of the will of his mother, Myra Boyle, who died on September 14, 1978; respondent retained Ronald Keyser to serve as attorney for the estate. Keyser informed respondent that the estate must file a federal estate tax return, but he did not mention the deadline for filing this return. Under 26 U.S.C. § 6075(a), the return was due within nine months of the decedent's death, i.e., not later than June 14, 1979.

Although a businessman, respondent was not experienced in the field of federal estate taxation, other than having been executor of his father's will 20 years earlier. It is undisputed that he relied on Keyser for instruction and guidance. He cooperated fully with his attorney and provided Keyser with all relevant information and records. Respondent and his wife contacted Keyser a number of times during the spring and summer of 1979 to inquire about the progress of the proceedings and the preparation of the tax return; they were assured that they would be notified when the return was due and that the return would be filed "in plenty of time." App. 39. When respondent called Keyser on September 6, 1979, he learned for the first time that the return was by then overdue. Apparently, Keyser had overlooked the matter because of a clerical oversight in omitting the filing date from Keyser's master calendar. Respondent met with Keyser on September 11, and the return was filed on September 13, three months late.

B

Acting pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6651(a)(1), the Internal Revenue Service assessed against the estate an additional tax of $17,124.45 as a penalty for the late filing, with $1,326.56 in interest. Section 6651(a)(1) reads in pertinent part:

"In case of failure . . . to file any return . . . on the date prescribed therefor . . ., unless it is shown that such failure is due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect, there shall be added to the amount required to be shown as tax on such return 5 percent of the amount of such tax if the failure is for not more than 1 month, with an additional 5 percent for each additional month or fraction thereof during which such failure continues, not exceeding 25 percent in the aggregate . . . ." (Emphasis added.)

A Treasury Regulation provides that, to demonstrate "reasonable cause," a taxpayer filing a late return must show that he "exercised ordinary business care and prudence and was nevertheless unable to file the return within the prescribed time." 26 CFR § 301.6651-1(c)(1) (1984).1 Respondent paid the penalty and filed a claim for a refund. He conceded that the assessment for interest was proper, but contended that the penalty was unjustified because his failure to file the return on time was "due to reasonable cause," i.e., reliance on his attorney. Respondent brought suit in the United States District Court, which concluded that the claim was controlled by the Court of Appeals' holding in Rohrabaugh v. United States, 611 F.2d 211 (CA7 1979). In Rohrabaugh, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that reliance upon counsel constitutes "reasonable cause" under § 6651(a)(1) when: (1) the taxpayer is unfamiliar with the tax law; (2) the taxpayer makes full disclosure of all relevant facts to the attorney that he relies upon, and maintains contact with the attorney from time to time during the administration of the estate; and (3) the taxpayer has otherwise exercised ordinary business care and prudence. 611 F.2d, at 215, 219. The District Court held that, under Rohrabaugh, respondent had established "reasonable cause" for the late filing of his tax return; accordingly, it granted summary judgment for respondent and ordered refund of the penalty. A divided panel of the Seventh Circuit, with three opinions, affirmed. 710 F.2d 1251 (1983).

We granted certiorari, 466 U.S. 903, 104 S.Ct. 1676, 80 L.Ed.2d 152 (1984), and we reverse.

II
A.

Congress' purpose in the prescribed civil penalty was to ensure timely filing of tax returns to the end that tax liability will be ascertained and paid promptly. The relevant statutory deadline provision is clear; it mandates that all federal estate tax returns be filed within nine months from the decedent's death, 26 U.S.C. 6075(a).2 Failure to comply incurs a penalty of 5 percent of the ultimately determined tax for each month the return is late, with a maximum of 25 percent of the base tax. To escape the penalty, the taxpayer bears the heavy burden of proving both (1) that the failure did not result from "willful neglect," and (2) that the failure was "due to reasonable cause." 26 U.S.C. § 6651(a)(1).

The meaning of these two standards has become clear over the near-70 years of their presence in the statutes.3 As used here, the term "willful neglect" may be read as meaning a conscious, intentional failure or reckless indifference. See Orient Investment & Finance Co. v. Commissioner, 83 U.S.App.D.C. 74, 75, 166 F.2d 601, 602 (1948); Hatfried, Inc. v. Commissioner, 162 F.2d 628, 634 (CA3 1947); Janice Leather Imports Ltd. v. United States, 391 F.Supp. 1235, 1237 (SDNY 1974); Gemological Institute of America, Inc. v. Riddell, 149 F.Supp. 128, 131-132 (SD Cal.1957). Like "willful neglect," the term "reasonable cause" is not defined in the Code, but the relevant Treasury Regulation calls on the taxpayer to demonstrate that he exercised "ordinary business care and prudence" but nevertheless was "unable to file the return within the prescribed time." 4 26 CFR § 301.6651(c)(1) (1984); accord, e.g., Fleming v. United States, 648 F.2d 1122, 1124 (CA7 1981); Ferrando v. United States, 245 F.2d 582, 587 (CA9 1957); Haywood Lumber & Mining Co. v. Commissioner, 178 F.2d 769, 770 (CA2 1950); Southeastern Finance Co. v. Commissioner, 153 F.2d 205 (CA5 1946); Girard Investment Co. v. Commissioner, 122 F.2d 843, 848 (CA3 1941); see also n. 1, supra. The Commissioner does not contend that respondent's failure to file the estate tax return on time was willful or reckless. The question to be resolved is whether, under the statute reliance on an attorney in the instant circumstances is a "reasonable cause" for failure to meet the deadline.

B

In affirming the District Court, the Court of Appeals recognized the difficulties presented by its formulation but concluded that it was bound by Rohrabaugh v. United States, 611 F.2d 211 (CA7 1979). The Court of Appeals placed great importance on the fact that respondent engaged the services of an experienced attorney specializing in probate matters and that he duly inquired from time to time as to the progress of the proceedings. As in Rohrabaugh, see id., at 219, the Court of Appeals in this case emphasized that its holding was narrowly drawn and closely tailored to the facts before it. The court stressed that the question of "reasonable cause" was an issue to be determined on a case-by-case basis. See 710 F.2d, at 1253-1254; id., at 1254 (Coffey, J., concurring).

Other Courts of Appeals have dealt with the issue of "reasonable cause" for a late filing and reached contrary conclusions.5 In Ferrando v. United States, 245...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1702 cases
  • Estate of Paxton v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, Docket Nos. 5044-82
    • United States
    • United States Tax Court
    • April 28, 1986
    ...1954, because, in failing to file such a return, the executor of the estate relied upon the advice of tax counsel. United States v. Boyle, 469 U.S. ___, 105 S.Ct. 687 (1985), followed. Leon C. Misterek, George M. Hartung, Meade Emory, and Woolvin Patten, for the petitioners.Wayne R. Applema......
  • The Tax Matters Partner v. USA, Civil Action No. 3:06cv379-HTW-MTP.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Southern District of Mississippi
    • April 30, 2010
    ...due diligence under Treas. Reg. § 1.6664-4. See Chamberlain v. Comm'r, 66 F.3d 729, 733 (5th Cir.1995); United States v. Boyle, 469 U.S. 241, 251, 105 S.Ct. 687, 83 L.Ed.2d 622 (1985); and Heasley v. Comm'r, 902 F.2d 380, 384-85 (5th Cir.1990) (explaining that “due care does not require mod......
  • Yung v. Grant Thornton, LLP, 2016-SC-000571-DG
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (Kentucky)
    • December 13, 2018
    ...§ 1.6662-4(g)(4)(i). 93 Fed.Cl. at 304. As the Alpha I, L.P., court noted[i]t is well established since [ United States v. Boyle, 469 U.S. 241, 105 S.Ct. 687, 83 L.Ed.2d 622 (1985) ] that reliance on the advice of a competent and independent professional adviser is a common means of demonst......
  • Lechter v. Aprio, LLP
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Northern District of Georgia
    • September 30, 2021
    ...taxpayers are not competent to discern error in the substantive advice of an accountant or attorney." United States v. Boyle , 469 U.S. 241, 251, 105 S.Ct. 687, 83 L.Ed.2d 622 (1985) (emphasis in original). At least insofar as Defendants were allegedly acting as Plaintiffs’ own tax advisors......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
16 firm's commentaries
22 books & journal articles
  • Tax violations.
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review Vol. 44 No. 2, March 2007
    • March 22, 2007
    ...than the defendant himself, signed income tax returns does not necessarily negate willfulness element). (119.) See United States v. Boyle, 469 U.S. 241, 250-51 (1985) (rejecting taxpayer's defense of reliance on estate attorney to file return, because taxpayer should have known tax returns ......
  • Tax violations.
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review Vol. 46 No. 2, March 2009
    • March 22, 2009
    ...than the defendant himself, signed income tax returns does not necessarily negate willfulness element). (125.) See United States v. Boyle, 469 U.S. 241, 250-51 (1985) (rejecting taxpayer's defense of reliance on estate attorney to file return, because taxpayer should have known tax returns ......
  • Tax Violations
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review No. 60-3, July 2023
    • July 1, 2023
    ...07 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding reliance on a qualif‌ied expert has “long been a defense to willfulness”). 146. See United States v. Boyle, 469 U.S. 241, at 250–51 (1985) (explaining that although a taxpayer may rely on the attorney’s erroneous legal conclusions, the taxpayer could not rely on ......
  • Tax Violations
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review No. 59-3, July 2022
    • July 1, 2022
    ...has “long been a defense to willfulness”). 148. See Moran , 493 F.3d at 1013. 149. Bishop , 291 F.3d at 1107. 150. United States v. Boyle, 469 U.S. 241, 250–51 (1985). 151. See United States v. Fawaz, 881 F.2d 259, 265 (6th Cir. 1989) (stating that willfulness was not necessarily negated wh......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT