- 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. UnitedPage: 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