- 41 -
gulled by Becker. On this record, we believe petitioners were
imprudent in their investigation, in going forward with the
transaction, and in claiming the tax benefits in issue.
We hold that petitioners did not reasonably or in good faith
rely on Becker as an expert or a qualified professional working
in the area of his expertise to establish the fair market value
of the Sentinel EPE recycler and the economic viability of the
Partnership transactions. Becker never assumed such
responsibility, and when he reported to his clients exactly what
he had done he took care not to overgeneralize his investigation
as "due diligence." Petitioners and Becker claim they relied on
Miller and other PI personnel with respect to the value of the
recycler and the economic viability of the Partnership
transactions. See Vojticek v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-444.
Neither Becker or Miller possessed any education, special
qualifications, or professional skills in plastics materials or
plastics recycling. A taxpayer may rely upon his adviser's
expertise (in these cases, accounting and tax advice), but it is
not reasonable or prudent to rely upon a tax adviser regarding
matters outside his field of expertise or with respect to facts
that he does not verify. See Goldman v. Commissioner, 39 F.3d at
408; Skeen v. Commissioner, 864 F.2d 93 (9th Cir. 1989), affg.
Patin v. Commissioner, 88 T.C. 1086 (1987); Lax v. Commissioner,
Page: Previous 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011