- 12 -
Conversely, respondent argues that petitioner is college-
educated and without experience in energy devices. Based on that
premise, respondent argues that petitioner's failure to inquire
about comparable costs of energy devices, obtain independent
appraisals, or seek the review of the promotional offering
materials by anyone other than the promoters and individuals
connected with the promoters, was not reasonable under the
circumstances.
Petitioner, in arguing that his reliance on advisers was
reasonable, relies, in particular, on the following three
opinions: Wentz v. Commissioner, 105 T.C. 1 (1995); Chamberlain
v. Commissioner, 66 F.3d 729 (5th Cir. 1995), affg. in part and
revg. in part T.C. Memo. 1994-228; and Norgaard v. Commissioner,
939 F.2d 874 (9th Cir. 1991), affg. in part and revg. in part
T.C. Memo. 1989-390. In Wentz v. Commissioner, supra at 15,
reliance on advisers was not a factor, and we held that the
taxpayers' legal position, although rejected by the Court, was
"reasonable under the circumstances". In that connection,
petitioner does not argue that his reporting position was
reasonable. Instead, petitioner has conceded that he is liable
for the income tax deficiency in each year.
In Chamberlain v. Commissioner, supra at 732-733, the Court
of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit expressed the following standard
for reliance on professional advice:
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011