- 14 -
merits of the claimed deductions and investment tax credits
rather than simply preparing the tax returns based on
information supplied to petitioner by Southampton. Finally,
petitioner's alleged conversation with Vogel in early 1985
regarding the tax treatment of other Southampton investors
provides no support for petitioner's argument that an adequate
independent investigation of the Southampton program was
performed prior to his investment or that petitioner had an
objective to earn an economic profit at the time the transaction
was entered into.
In light of the suspect tax benefits offered by the
Southampton investment and noting petitioner's education and
work experience in the area of financial and profit analysis, we
do not find petitioner's reliance on his alleged advisers to be
reasonable or in keeping with the standard of an ordinarily
prudent person. We note that none of the advisers purportedly
relied on by petitioner had any special qualifications or
experience in the music industry or with master recording leases
that would reasonably lead them to believe that the Southampton
investment program would be economically profitable. It is not
reasonable or prudent to rely upon an adviser regarding matters
outside of his field of expertise or with respect to facts which
he does not verify. See Skeen v. Commissioner, 864 F.2d 93 (9th
Cir. 1989), affg. Patin v. Commissioner, 88 T.C. 1086 (1987).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011