Opinion ID: 2444731
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: United States v. Boyle

Text: Appellants argue, and we agree, that the trial court erred, as a matter of law, in applying United States v. Boyle to bar the Pairs' claims for malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty. The question at issue in Boyle was 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. Boyle, 469 U.S. at 242, 105 S.Ct. 687. Boyle concerned the duties an estate and its representative owed to the IRS. By contrast, the Pairs' claims of malpractice concern the duties a professional owes to a client. Mr. Queen's dual status as a personal representative and as attorney for the estate has, understandably, led to some confusion in analyzing the complaint. The Pairs are not seeking to excuse [t]he failure to make a timely filing of a tax return... by [their] reliance on an agent. Boyle, 469 U.S. at 252, 105 S.Ct. 687 (holding that the executor's reliance on the estate attorney to file the return did not constitute reasonable cause for the failure to file a timely return). Instead, they are seeking compensatory and consequential damages through a malpractice claim. Importantly, nothing in Boyle suggests that a taxpayer's non-delegable duty to the IRS relieves a professional from liability for negligent failure to perform the duties for which an estate has employed him. [4]