- 38 -- 38 -
technology specifically. One of the taxpayers in Krause v.
Commissioner, 99 T.C. 132 (1992), undertook significant
investigation of the proposed investment including researching
EOR technology. The other taxpayer was a geological and mining
engineer whose work included research of oil recovery methods and
who hired an independent geologic engineer to review the offering
materials. Id. at 166. In the present cases, petitioners were
not experienced or educated in plastics recycling. They did not
independently investigate the Sentinel recyclers or hire an
expert in plastics to evaluate the Partnership transactions. We
consider petitioners' arguments with respect to the Krause case
inapplicable.
2. Petitioners' Purported Reliance on Tax Advisers
Petitioners maintain that they reasonably relied upon the
advice of qualified advisers. Gollin contends that he reasonably
relied on Becker; Fredericks contends that he reasonably relied
upon Becker, Steele, Cohen, and Porter; and Fishbach contends
that he reasonably relied upon Hertan and Becker.
The concept of negligence and the argument of reliance on an
expert are highly fact intensive. Petitioners in these cases are
very well educated professionals: Two are lawyers and the third
is a forensic accountant. These professionals ultimately relied
upon an accountant to investigate the tax law and the underlying
business circumstances of a proposed investment, the success of
Page: Previous 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011