Paul A. Bilzerian - Page 14




                                       - 14 -                                         
               Q    Do you remember accepting liability or denying                    
               liability in that lawsuit?                                             
               A    I am assuming that if I went to the attorney I                    
               probably denied liability.                                             
               Q    Okay.  Didn’t we speak about a week ago or so?                    
               A    Yes.                                                              
               Q    And in that conversation you told me that you deny                
               liability?                                                             
               A    I don’t remember if I said that to you.  I                        
               probably said that to you, though.  But you are asking                 
               me questions that I really, in my memory since, I don’t                
               know.  I can only tell you what I think.                               
               Mr. Norris further testified that at the time he prepared              
          petitioner’s 1986 return, he believed it was accurate and correct           
          and that he did not have any reason to believe that there was any           
          error committed in the preparation of the return.  When                     
          petitioner sued Mr. Norris for malpractice in 1992, Mr. Norris              
          denied any liability in the malpractice proceeding.  Finally,               
          petitioner has not alleged that prior to the preparation of the             
          1986 return, he informed Mr. Norris that either Peat Marwick or             
          the Macks asked petitioner to participate in recharacterizing a             
          portion of the gain from the Hammermill stock transactions                  
          attributable to Bilzerian & Mack in order to accommodate the                
          Macks’ tax planning objectives.  Considering these circumstances,           
          we do not find either petitioner or Mr. Norris credible with                
          respect to their testimony in support of petitioner’s position              
          that the $4 million omission was attributable to a mistake by Mr.           
          Norris.  Tokarski v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. at 77; see McCann v.             







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011