Albert R. and Phyllis F. Dworkin - Page 26

                                                 - 26 -                                                    
            were made in good faith.  Respondent's refusal to waive a section                              
            6659 addition to tax is reviewable by this Court for abuse of                                  
            discretion.  Krause v. Commissioner, supra at 179.                                             
                  Petitioners urged that they relied on Grant, Roberts, and                                
            the offering memorandum in deciding on the valuation claimed on                                
            their tax return.  Petitioners contend that such reliance was                                  
            reasonable and, therefore, respondent should have waived the                                   
            section 6659 addition to tax.                                                                  
                  We have found that petitioner's purported reliance on Grant,                             
            Roberts, and the offering memorandum was not reasonable.  Grant                                
            and Roberts were promoters of Northeast and knew nothing about                                 
            plastics or plastics recycling.  See Vojticek v. Commissioner,                                 
            T.C. Memo. 1995-444, to the effect that advice from such persons                               
            "is better classified as sales promotion".  The evaluators whose                               
            reports were appended to the offering memorandum each owned                                    
            interests in partnerships which leased Sentinel EPE recyclers.                                 
            The offering memorandum contained numerous caveats, including the                              
            following:  NO OFFEREE SHOULD CONSIDER THE CONTENTS OF THIS                                    
            MEMORANDUM *** AS *** EXPERT ADVICE.  EACH OFFEREE SHOULD CONSULT                              
            HIS OWN PROFESSIONAL ADVISERS.  Petitioner did not see a Sentinel                              
            EPE recycler prior to investing in Northeast, nor did he                                       
            independently investigate the recyclers.                                                       
                  Petitioners did not have a reasonable basis for the adjusted                             
            bases or valuations reflected on their 1981 return with respect                                
            to their investment in Northeast.  Accordingly, in this case                                   

Page:  Previous  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011