- 22 -
with Professional and Evergreen. His reliance in this setting
was not reasonable and/or in good faith. Petitioner had no prior
experience with Mr. Shriver, who was connected with the
promoter/seller of the investment. In a similar manner,
petitioner's friend, Mr. Chalich, was not qualified regarding the
technical aspects or physical properties of the investment. In
addition, as a salesman for Professional, he was not independent.
As noted in the discussion concerning the addition to tax for
negligence, it was not reasonable for petitioner to rely on
Professional and its agents and associates because they earned
fees in connection with the sale of the tax shelters.
Furthermore, the individuals petitioner relied upon lacked not
only independence, but also any specific expertise concerning the
subject matter of petitioner's investment vehicle.
We again note that petitioner, a college graduate with an
advanced degree, was knowledgeable about the manner in which the
transaction was to operate and that he would receive cash $3,000
greater than his out-of-pocket investment. Also, petitioner was
aware that the energy device was to be leased and that it had a
substantial value. Even though he stated that he was relying on
the investment for his retirement, he took no actions to
determine if the device existed, was in use, or had value. After
he received his $3,000 plus return, he did virtually nothing that
would have supported the assertions he made in this case.
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