- 47 -
based upon full disclosure. The purported value of the Sentinel
EPE recycler generated the deductions and credits in these cases,
and that circumstance was reflected in the offering memoranda.
Petitioner testified that the tax benefits were explained to him
and that he recognized that the Sentinel recycler was "very
expensive." Certainly Tucker and Becker recognized the nature of
the tax benefits and, given petitioner's education and
professional experience, he should have recognized it as well.
Yet neither petitioner, nor Tucker, nor Becker verified the
purported value of the Sentinel EPE recycler. Petitioner
ultimately relied on Becker, and Becker confirmed at trial that
he relied on PI for the value of the Sentinel EPE recyclers.
In the end, Tucker, Becker, and petitioner relied on PI
personnel for the value of the Sentinel EPE recyclers and the
economic viability of the Partnership transactions. See Vojticek
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-444, to the effect that advice
from such persons "is better classified as sales promotion."
Tucker and Becker did not have any education, special
qualifications, or professional skills in plastics materials or
plastics recycling. 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
Page: Previous 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011