- 80 -
professional's mistakes. Weis v. Commissioner, supra; Conlorez
Corp. v. Commissioner, 51 T.C. 467, 474 (1968).
Neither petitioners Glassley nor Houser have established
that their accountants (or brother) had specialized knowledge of
the jojoba industry or of agricultural research. Nor have
petitioners Glassley or Houser established the extent or nature
of these individuals' tax expertise. None of these alleged
professionals, moreover, made an independent investigation of the
JDP partnership or hired anyone to make such an investigation.
In evaluating the transaction, petitioners Glassley's accountant
and petitioners Houser's accountant and Dr. Houser's brother
relied solely on the offering circular. See Vojticek v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-444, to the effect that advice from
persons with an interest in the transaction "is better classified
as sales promotion".
Furthermore, there is no reliable evidence in the record
suggesting the exact nature of the advice, if any, that was
given. Neither of the accountants nor Dr. Houser's brother
testified. We cannot assume that their testimony would have been
favorable to petitioners. The normal inference is that it would
have been unfavorable. Pollack v. Commissioner, 47 T.C. 92, 108
(1966), affd. 392 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1968); see also Tokarski v.
Commissioner, 87 T.C. 74, 77 (1986); Bresler v. Commissioner, 65
T.C. 182, 188 (1975); Wichita Terminal Elevator Co. v.
Page: Previous 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011