Jeffrey I. and Roberta H. Stone - Page 15

                                       - 15 -                                         
          and that Finkle & Co. received a sales commission on his                    
          investment in the Partnerships.  Cote also knew that Frabotta and           
          Omohundro were not plastics recycling experts.  Cote knew of                
          Tomasetti because he was Omohundro's accountant, but Cote never             
          had any direct conversations with Tomasetti.                                
               None of petitioners have any education or work experience in           
          plastics recycling or plastics materials.  They did not                     
          independently investigate the Sentinel EPE recyclers or see a               
          Sentinel EPE recycler or any other type of plastics recycler                
          prior to participating in the recycling ventures.                           
                                      OPINION                                        
               We have decided more than two dozen of the Plastics                    
          Recycling group of cases.8  The majority of these cases, like the           

          8    Provizer v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-177, concerned the           
          substance of the partnership transaction and also the additions             
          to tax.  The following cases concern additions to tax for                   
          negligence, inter alia:  Reimann v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.                
          1996-84; Bennett v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-14; Atkind v.             
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-582; Triemstra v. Commissioner,               
          T.C. Memo. 1995-581; Pace v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-580;             
          Dworkin v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-533; Wilson v                      
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-525; Avellini v. Commissioner, T.C.           
          Memo. 1995-489; Paulson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-387;               
          Zidanich v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-382; Ramesh v.                    
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-346; Reister v. Commissioner, T.C.            
          Memo. 1995-305; Fralich v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-257;               
          Shapiro v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-224; Pierce v.                     
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-223; Fine v. Commissioner, T.C.               
          Memo. 1995-222; Pearlman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-182;              
          Kott v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-181; and Eisenberg v.                 
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-180.  Also, Baratelli v.                      
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-484; Estate of Satin v.                       
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-435; Fisher v. Commissioner, T.C.             
          Memo. 1994-434; Foam Recycling Associates v. Commissioner, T.C.             
          Memo. 1992-645; and Madison Recycling Associates v. Commissioner,           
          T.C. Memo. 1992-605, concern other issues.                                  



Page:  Previous  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011