Peter and Ursula Reimann, et al. - Page 35

                                       - 35 -                                         
          industry know-how in plastics recycling which would reasonably              
          lead them to believe that the Partnership transactions would be             
          economically profitable.  The extent of the Bachmann, Schwartz              
          investigation was a tour of PI's plant in Hyannis and a                     
          discussion with the principals of PI.  No independent experts in            
          the field of plastics or plastics recycling were consulted by               
          petitioners or Bachmann, Schwartz.  The facts of these cases are            
          distinctly different from those in the Mollen case.  We consider            
          petitioners' arguments with respect to the Mollen case                      
          inapplicable.                                                               
               Petitioners' arguments are not supported by Anderson v.                
          Commissioner, 62 F.3d 1266 (10th Cir. 1995), affg. T.C. Memo.               
          1993-607, where the taxpayers were found liable for negligence              
          additions to tax.  In Anderson, the taxpayers claimed tax                   
          benefits based upon their acquisition of property listed at                 
          $124,500, for which they actually paid $6,225 in a cash                     
          downpayment (5 percent of the purchase price) plus a 5-year                 
          financing arrangement.  Had the acquisition been nothing more               
          than a $6,225 passive investment, noted the Court of Appeals, it            
          would have been reasonable for the taxpayers to rely on the                 
          advice of a good friend who had thoroughly investigated the                 
          investment.11  However, because the transaction was structured              


          11   The adviser had his accountant and attorney review and check           
          out the structure of the investment; he spoke with the investment           
          principal; he looked into the principal's background and checked            
          out his references, banks, other business connections, and the              
          Better Business Bureau; and he spoke with competitors to make               
                                                             (continued...)           


Page:  Previous  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011