- 48 -- 48 -
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 of his field
of expertise or with respect to facts that he does not verify.
See David v. Commissioner, 43 F.3d at 789-790; 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, T.C. Memo. 1994-329; Sacks v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-217; Rogers v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1990-619; see also Grelsamer v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1996-399; Zenkel v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-398; Estate of
Busch v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-342; Spears v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-341, with respect to Becker's
advice in Plastics Recycling cases.
c. Hertan
Fishbach learned of the Plastics Recycling transactions from
Hertan, his partner at ZFH. Hertan oversaw the bookkeeping and
general financial affairs of ZFH. He and Fishbach lived near
each other and carpooled in and out of Manhattan. With respect
to the Partnership transactions, Fishbach testified that Hertan
"found an investment that he thought was of interest" and that he
mentioned visiting Hyannis to look at some equipment. Asked if
Hertan gave him a report about what he found at Hyannis, Fishbach
replied:
Page: Previous 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011