John J. Smith, Pers. Rep. of the Est. of Ann S. Olson v. United States, 702 F.2d 741 (8th Cir. 1983). · Go Syfert
Search
John J. Smith, Pers. Rep. of the Est. of Ann S. Olson v. United States, 702 F.2d 741 (8th Cir. 1983). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
22 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Estate of Liftin v. United States (uscfc, 2013-05-17)
Treatment trajectory · 1983 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1983 2004 2026
Statutes interpreted (leading-cases list)
#6 26 U.S.C. § 6075 cited 2× in this case · 59 total citations of statute
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Estate of Liftin v. United States
Fed. Cl. · 2013 · confidence medium
See Estate of Kerber v. United States, 717 F.2d 454 , 454 n. 1, 455 (8th Cir.1983) (per curiam); Smith v. United States, 702 F.2d 741, 742 (8th Cir.1983).
cited Cited as authority (rule) The Estate of Morton Liftin, John Liftin v. United States
Fed. Cl. · 2013 · confidence medium
See Estate of Kerber v. United States, 717 F.2d 454 , 454 n.1, 455 (8th Cir. 1983) (per curiam); Smith v. United States, 702 F.2d 741, 742 (8th Cir. 1983).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Estate of La Meres v. Comm'r (2×)
unknown court · 1992 · confidence medium
Bull. 1; Estate of Bradley v. Commissioner, 33 TCM 70, 72-73 (1974) (same), affd. 511 F.2d 527 (CA 6 1975), with Estate of Kerber v. United States, 717 F.2d 454, 454-455 , and n.1 (CA 8 1983) (per curiam) (no “reasonable cause”), cert. pending, No. 83-1038; Smith v. United States, 702 F.2d 741, 742 (CA 8 1983) (same); Sarto v. United States, 563 F. Supp. 476, 478 (ND Cal. 1983) (same).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Victor D. Denenburg and Wife, Sandra J. Denenburg v. United States (2×)
5th Cir. · 1991 · confidence medium
Doring v. United States, 469 U.S. 1188 , 105 S.Ct. 955 , 83 L.Ed.2d 962 (1985); Smith v. United States, 702 F.2d 741, 743 (8th Cir.1983) (executor had nondelegable duty to file a timely return, and reliance on the mistaken advice of a tax advisor as to the due date is not sufficient to constitute "reasonable cause” for failing to fulfill that duty (following Boeving v. United States, 650 F.2d 493, 495 (8th Cir.1981) and Estate of Lillehei v. Commissioner, 638 F.2d 65, 66 (8th Cir.1981))). 6 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Laura Heim v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Clarence Heim v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Elmer Heim v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (2×)
8th Cir. · 1989 · confidence medium
See Estate of Kerber v. United States, 717 F.2d 454, 455 (8th Cir.1983), ce rt. denied, 469 U.S. 1188 , 105 S.Ct. 955 , 83 L.Ed.2d 962 (1985); Smith v. United States, 702 F.2d 741, 743 (8th Cir.1983).
examined Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Boyle (4×)
SCOTUS · 1985 · confidence medium
The Eighth Circuit also has concluded that reliance on counsel does not constitute "reasonable cause." Smith v. United States, 702 F. 2d 741, 743 (1983) (per curiam) ; Boeving v. United States, 650 F. 2d 493, 495 (1981); Estate of Lillehei v. Commissioner, 638 F. 2d 65, 66 (1981) (per curiam) .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Estate of Jessie E. Kerber, Helen Doring v. United States
8th Cir. · 1983 · confidence medium
Although in our later decision in Smith v. United States, 702 F.2d 741 (8th Cir.1983), we noted that “[Boeving and Estate of Lillehei] do not establish a rule of law that a personal representative’s reliance on counsel can never constitute reasonable cause,” 702 F.2d at 743 (emphasis in original), we reaffirmed *456 our adherence to the rule set forth in Boev-ing.
discussed Cited "see" Boogaard v. National Hockey League
N.D. Ill. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high
See Smith v. United States, 702 F.2d 741, 742-43 (8th Cir. 1983) (affirming the district court’s judgment in a suit brought by a personal representative seeking a refund of tax penalties assessed against the decedent’s estate); Prof'l Fiduciary, Inc. v. Silverman, 713 N.W.2d 67, 68 (Minn. App. 2006) (holding that a “personal representative can assert a malpractice claim against the decedent’s, former attorney”).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
John J. SMITH, Personal Representative of the Estate of Ann S. Olson, Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee
82-1767.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Mar 29, 1983.
702 F.2d 741
Keith Bellairs, Park Rapids, Minn., for appellant., Glenn L. Archer, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Michael L. Paup, Carleton D. Powell, Jo-Ann Horn, Attys., Tax Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for appellee; James M. Rosenbaum, U.S. Atty., Minneapolis, Minn., of counsel.
Heaney, Ross, Fagg.
Cited by 14 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

John J. Smith, the personal representative of the estate of Ann S. Olson, appeals from the district court’s [1] order granting summary judgment against him on his action to obtain a refund of the penalty imposed by the Internal Revenue Service because he filed the federal estate tax some two and one-half months after it was due.

I.

BACKGROUND

Ann Olson died on December 17, 1978. Under the terms of her will, John Smith was appointed personal representative of the estate. Thereafter, he retained an attorney to help settle the estate. The estate tax return for Olson’s estate was due nine months after her death. 26 U.S.C. § 6075(a). Unfortunately, Smith’s attorney was under the mistaken impression that the return was not due until one year after Olson’s death.

On December 7, 1979 — over two months late — Smith filed the estate tax return for Olson’s estate. He paid a federal estate tax of approximately $15,000 with this return. In January, 1980, the Internal Revenue Service notified Smith that he had erred in computing the tax liability, and that he owed an additional sum of more than $18,-000. He promptly paid this added amount. Shortly thereafter, the Internal Revenue Service assessed a late-filing penalty of $5,232.87 pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6651(a)(1). Smith paid that penalty, [2] filed a claim for a refund and upon its denial, instituted this action in the district court. The court granted the government’s motion for summary judgment.

II.

DISCUSSION

Smith concedes that he failed to file the tax return for Olson’s estate within nine months of her death as required by 26 U.S.C. § 6075(a). Section 6651(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code provides that if a tax return is not timely filed, there shall be added to the tax due a five percent penalty for each month the return is unfiled, not to exceed twenty-five percent of the tax due, “unless it is shown that such failure is due to reasonable cause and not due to wilful neglect.” 26 U.S.C. § 6651(a) (Emphasis added.) Smith contends that he has established such “reasonable cause” for his untimely filing because he relied upon his counsel’s advice regarding the due date for the estate tax return.

The district court, relying on this Court’s recent decisions in Boeving v. United States, 650 F.2d 493 (8th Cir.1981), and Estate of Lillehei v. Commissioner, 638 F.2d 65 (8th Cir.1981), held that Smith’s reliance on his counsel did not constitute reasonable cause for his failure to timely file the estate tax return within the meaning of section 6651(a)(1). We affirm.

[*743] In Boeving v. United States, supra, 650 F.2d at 495, this Court reversed the district court’s finding that the Internal Revenue Service could not impose a penalty on an untimely estate tax return because the executrix had reasonably relied upon her attorney who was mistaken as to the required filing date. We stated:

In our view, however, the district court’s treatment of the taxpayer is precluded by the recent decision of this Court in Estate of Lillehei v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 638 F.2d 65 (8th Cir.1981). The executor or executrix has a personal and nondelegable duty to file a timely return, and reliance on the mistaken advice of counsel is not sufficient to constitute “reasonable cause” for failing to fulfill that duty.

Id. at 495.

The district court’s grant of summary judgment here against Smith was plainly proper under this Court’s Boeving and Estate of Lillehei decisions. Although these decisions do not establish a rule of law that a personal representative’s reliance on counsel can never constitute reasonable cause under section 6651(a)(1) for failing to file a timely return, Smith has not demonstrated any facts that distinguish the circumstances in this action from those present in Boeving and Estate of Lillehei. Thus, those cases are controlling here, and the court below did not err in finding that Smith’s reliance on his attorney did not constitute reasonable cause for his failure to file the estate tax return within the nine-month deadline.

Finally, the penalty imposed by the Internal Revenue Service did not exceed the amount authorized by 26 U.S.C. § 6651(a)(1). Accordingly, the district court did not err in rejecting Smith’s claim that the fine was improper.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

1

. The Honorable Edward J. Devitt, United States Senior District Judge for the District of Minnesota.

2

. Smith’s attorney has reimbursed the estate for the amount of the penalty.