- 64 -- 64 -
specifically about the Plastics Recycling transactions or the
Sentinel EPE recycler. Similarly, Becker purportedly discussed
the transactions with Canno, who apparently was familiar with the
plastics industry, but Canno was not hired by Becker to
investigate PI and the Sentinel EPE recycler, never saw a
Sentinel EPE recycler, and never prepared any kind of formal,
written analysis of the venture. Becker and petitioners relied
upon representations by insiders to the Plastics Recycling
transactions, and neither he nor petitioners hired any
independent experts in the field of plastic materials or plastics
recycling. Accordingly, we consider petitioners' arguments with
respect to the Mollen case inapplicable under the circumstances
of these cases.
In Climenhage, the taxpayers incorrectly excluded from gross
income damages awarded to them in a breach of contract suit. We
rejected imposition of the negligence addition to tax because the
taxpayers reasonably followed the tax advice of the attorney who
brought their suit. Unlike petitioners' cases, the adviser in
the Climenhage case was aware of all of the relevant facts and
his advice pertained to a matter within his area of expertise,
interpretation of the law. Accordingly, petitioners' reliance on
Climenhage v. Commissioner, supra, is misplaced.
In Chellappan v. Commissioner, supra, the taxpayers invested
in a fraudulent equipment leasing tax shelter. Although the
Page: Previous 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011