- 18 -
Should you elect to schedule more time with Mr.
Shriver, he will discuss a fee schedule for the
services to be rendered.
Petitioner entered into a $1,500 agreement with Professional for
service, which included 1 hour with a "certified public
accountant", whom we must assume is Mr. Shriver. Petitioner has
failed to show Mr. Shriver's independence from the organization
that, at the very least, benefits from the sale of the investment
opportunity on which Mr. Shriver opined. Considering established
precedent and the specific circumstances of this case, it was not
reasonable for petitioner to rely on the individuals in question.
Petitioner had a clear basic understanding of the dynamics
and magnitude of this energy-device transaction. He was aware
that his tax benefits and any potential for income stemmed from
the lease of a device whose purported cost, relative to his net
worth and income, was substantial. His focus was primarily, if
not solely on the tax benefits. Petitioner would have otherwise
been concerned about the bona fides of the transaction. If
petitioner was interested in income (retirement or otherwise) he
would, at the very least, want to know whether such an energy
device existed, operated, was leased and had value equivalent to
the claims on which his reported credits and deductions were
based.
Accordingly, it was not reasonable for him to ignore the
bona fides of the transaction or to rely on persons who were
without specialized knowledge or who had a financial interest in
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011