Bruce and Lois Zenkel, et al. - Page 38

                                       - 38 -                                         
          in workouts and turnarounds of technology companies.  Selvin is a           
          C.P.A. who ran his own accounting firm for 30 to 35 years in New            
          York City.  In respect of these accomplishments and their obvious           
          financial prowess, petitioners Blount, David, and Selvin do not             
          pretend to be unsophisticated investors.                                    
               Mrs. Zenkel, on the other hand, claims that she is an                  
          unsophisticated investor.  Her claim is without merit.  In her              
          SAB Reclamation subscription agreement, Mrs. Zenkel expressly               
          represented and warranted that she had the experience and                   
          expertise in financial and business affairs necessary to evaluate           
          the merits and risks of investing in SAB Reclamation.  Moreover,            
          her decision to invest in SAB Reclamation was made with the                 
          assistance of Mr. Zenkel, an investment banker with experience in           
          the syndication business.  Although Mr. Zenkel did not testify at           
          the trial4, the record shows that he discussed SAB Reclamation              
          with his wife, Steele, and Becker.  Becker testified that Mr.               
          Zenkel "called me directly regarding the program.  He had a large           


          4         Mr. and Mrs. Zenkel both benefited from the tax                   
          deductions and credits from SAB Reclamation on their joint 1982             
          Federal Income tax return, and together they petitioned this                
          Court in docket No. 12091-89.  The testimony of Mrs. Zenkel and             
          Becker shows that Mr. Zenkel was heavily involved in the decision           
          to invest in SAB Reclamation, and his failure to testify does not           
          further his wife's claim that she was an unsophisticated                    
          investor.  See Bresler v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 182, 188 (1975);            
          Pollack v. Commissioner, 47 T.C. 92, 108 (1966), affd. 392 F.2d             
          409 (5th Cir. 1968); Wichita Terminal Elevator Co. v.                       
          Commissioner, 6 T.C. 1158, 1165 (1946), affd. 162 F.2d 513 (10th            
          Cir. 1947).                                                                 





Page:  Previous  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011