- 28 -
regarding those matters. Moreover, as the District Court noted,
the propriety of the taxpayer's disallowed deduction therein was
"reasonably debatable."
The records in these cases, on the other hand, show no
comparable evidence that either of petitioners or their
"adviser," Gallagher, had formal education, expertise, or
experience in plastics or plastics recycling, although Black
explained that he had substantial knowledge of polyethylene for
purposes of selling machinery. As a representative of Bankers
Trust, Gallagher's due diligence responsibilities extended only
to a review of the tax opinion letter. He took no responsibility
for the valuation of the machinery in the Empire transaction.
Petitioners had knowledge and experience in business and the
pricing of machinery, and ready access to IMCO, a subsidiary of
Ingersoll-Rand which manufactured plastic injection molding
equipment, and which Bennett believed used the same type of
pellets produced by the Sentinel EPE recycler. However, they did
not utilize that knowledge and experience or consult anyone at
IMCO with respect to the purported value of the Sentinel EPE
recycler or its economic viability. The facts of these cases are
distinctly different from those in the Mollen case. We find
petitioners' arguments with respect to the Mollen case
inapplicable.
Petitioners' arguments are not supported by Anderson v.
Commissioner, 62 F.3d 1266 (10th Cir. 1995), affg. T.C. Memo.
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011