- 24 -
testimony indicates as much. Paulson, Cassaday, and Diamond all
were associated with Efron, and the record indicates that
petitioners should have known about such associations.
With respect to petitioners' claimed heavy reliance on
Efron, a promoter and general partner in EI, we recently have
suggested that advice from such persons "is better classified as
sales promotion." See Vojticek v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-
444. The other individuals with whom petitioners claim to have
discussed the Efron investment were closely associated with
Efron, had no expertise in plastics or recycling, and in any
event, were not heavily relied upon by petitioners.
Petitioners' reliance on brief on Heasley v. Commissioner,
902 F.2d 380 (5th Cir. 1990), revg. T.C. Memo. 1988-408, is
misplaced. The facts in the Heasley case are distinctly
different from the facts of these cases. In the Heasley case,
the taxpayers actively monitored their investment. Petitioners
have provided no evidence that they made any effort to monitor
their investment in EI. Their testimony indicates that they paid
only casual attention to the shift of a major portion of the
investments of EI from real estate to plastics recycling. In
addition, the taxpayers in the Heasley case were not educated
beyond high school. Wilson had completed 3-1/2 years of college,
and Sorey was only a few credits short of requirements for his
B.A. degree from the University of Illinois at the time of their
investments in EI. In contrast to the diligent but relatively
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011