- 10 -
whether she visited Mr. Mussina in person or sent him papers to
review, she could not recall whether he provided her with a
written opinion, and she could not recall whether she was billed
for the advice.
The facts in this case are similar to those in Glassley v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-206. In that case we found that
the taxpayers--
acted on their fascination with the idea of participating in
a jojoba farming venture and their satisfaction with tax
benefits of expensing their investments, which were clear to
them from the promoter’s presentation. They passed the
offering circular by their accountants for a “glance” * * *.
Id. Similarly, petitioner in this case acted on her enthusiasm
for the potential uses of jojoba and acted with knowledge of the
tax benefits of making the investment. There is no reliable
evidence in the record suggesting the exact nature of the advice
that was given, or upon what facts such advice was based.
Petitioner has failed to establish that she consulted with Mr.
Mussina concerning the proper tax treatment of the partnership
loss, or even if she had, that her reliance on such advice was
reasonable or in good faith. See id.; Chamberlain v.
Commissioner, supra at 732.
In her brief, petitioner cites Kantor v. Commissioner, 998
F.2d 1514 (9th Cir. 1993), affg. in part and revg. in part T.C.
Memo. 1990-380. In Kantor, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit held that the taxpayers were not negligent because they
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