- 30 -
evidence of any effort to monitor his investment in EI. He
testified that he did not learn of the change in the nature of
EI's investments to include recycling until 3 months prior to
trial of this case, over 10 years after he invested in EI. In
addition, the taxpayers in the Heasley case were not educated
beyond high school and had limited investment experience, while
in the instant case petitioner had nearly completed the
requirements for a bachelor of science degree in business
management and had substantial previous investment experience.
Prior to his investment in EI, petitioner had invested in stocks,
bonds, commodities, certificates of deposit, real estate, a
professional women's basketball team, a sock company, and oil and
gas partnerships. In fact, on his EI offeree questionnaire,
petitioner indicated that he believed that he possessed
"sufficient knowledge of private placements and real estate
investments to evaluate the risks associated with investing" in
EI because of his "experience in other investments." We consider
petitioner's arguments with respect to the Heasley case
inapplicable.
At trial, petitioner could remember almost nothing about his
investment in EI. Although he testified that he was "sure" that
he had seen the original offering memorandum, he did not recall
reading it. Petitioner could not recall whether he borrowed the
funds to acquire his interest in EI. At the time of his
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011