- 49 -
petitioners relied upon advice which was outside the scope of
expertise and experience of their advisers. Consequently, we
consider petitioners' reliance on the Mauerman case inapplicable.
We hold that petitioners did not have a reasonable basis for
the adjusted bases or valuations reflected on their tax returns
with respect to their investments in Scarborough and Plymouth.
In these cases respondent properly could find that petitioners'
respective reliance on Bachmann and Greene, and in varying
degrees the offering materials, was unreasonable. The records in
these cases do not establish an abuse of discretion on the part
of respondent but support respondent's position. We hold that
respondent's refusal to waive the section 6659 addition to tax is
not an abuse of discretion. Petitioners are liable for the
section 6659 addition to tax at the rate of 30 percent of the
underpayment of tax attributable to the disallowed tax benefits.
Respondent is sustained on this issue.
Decisions will be entered
under Rule 155.
Page: Previous 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 Last modified: May 25, 2011