- 19 -
Heasley is not applicable to the cases at hand. First,
petitioners in these cases, although having limited investment
experience, are not entirely unsophisticated in business matters:
The Bronsons operated two sole proprietorships; Mr. Gordon-Wylie
was a corporate sales account manager; Mrs. Gordon-Wylie was
employed by an accounting firm; and the Garritys assisted in the
operation of an incorporated business. Second, we have found
petitioners’ reliance on Mr. Trimboli to be unreasonable because
he was not an independent adviser. Furthermore, the Gordon-
Wylies and the Garritys relied solely on one individual, and that
individual both sold them their investment and advised them as to
its legal effect without independently researching the legal
issues involved. The Bronsons also effectively relied on one
individual because, as discussed below, they did not consult with
their return preparer concerning the investment, nor did the
preparer independently investigate it herself before classifying
the purported loss as a deduction.
In addition to reliance on Mr. Trimboli, the Bronsons also
claim reliance on their tax return preparer, Ms. DiTommaso. From
the record, we conclude Ms. DiTommaso’s role was confined to a
routine return preparation in which she merely transferred the
purported loss from the Schedule K-1 onto the Bronsons’
return–the Bronsons neither sought nor received from Ms.
DiTommaso any particular advice concerning the investment or the
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011