- 8 -
could not have provided him with the expertise necessary for
determining whether the partnership was viable and had the
potential to be profitable.
Petitioners also relied on Mr. Jones' and Mr. Schutz'
advice. Unfortunately, petitioners never asked whether Mr. Jones
had any expertise in agriculture or research and development, nor
even if he had a college education. Mr. Schutz had no expertise
in agriculture or research and development issues. We have no
evidence of the extent to which Mr. Schutz examined the offering.
Petitioners did not establish that Mr. Jones or Mr. Schutz had
the expertise and knowledge of the pertinent facts to provide
informed advice on the investment in Utah I.
Petitioners claim that they were unsophisticated investors
like the taxpayers in Dyckman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-
79. They claim this is demonstrated by the fact that they lost
around $100,000 on their various investments. The facts of
Dyckman are different from the facts of this case. In Dyckman,
the taxpayers relied on their long-time friend who was a C.P.A.;
they were not aware that the investment in the partnership was
designed to produce tax benefits; and they had virtually no
experience in financial or investment matters. Id. Petitioners
relied on Mr. Jones, whose educational background they were
unaware of; they were aware that the investment would produce
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011