- 13 -
position that he reasonably relied on the advice of independent
parties. Petitioner contends that the factors considered by the
Court in Mollen are generally applicable to the instant case.
The underlying transaction in Mollen is in all material respects
identical to the transactions at issue in this case and that of
Charlton v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1990-402. However, the
facts and circumstances surrounding the taxpayer in Mollen and
his investment in the limited partnership Diabetics CME Group,
Ltd. (Diabetics) are distinguishable from the instant case.
The taxpayer in Mollen was a physician specializing in the
study of diabetes and a leader of a continuing medical education
(CME) accreditation program for a local hospital. He served on a
committee in charge of evaluating CME programs and had a prior
association with Hahnemann. Prior to investing in Diabetics, he
consulted with his personal accountant and a tax attorney. The
taxpayer had no prior business experience. Petitioner, on the
other hand, is a sophisticated attorney with business experience
and knowledge of investments, as evidenced by his interest in a
real estate partnership and rental properties. Petitioner had no
expertise in medicine or therapeutic exercise. His experience
with continuing legal education does not equate to a knowledge of
the nontax business activities of MSA. Petitioner also relied on
the advice of an adviser to whom he had just been introduced by
an unknown promoter of tax shelters. We find Mollen v. United
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011