- 48 -
In the end, Becker and petitioners relied on PI personnel
for the value of the Sentinel EPE recyclers and the economic
viability of the Partnership transactions. See Vojticek v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-444, to the effect that advice from
such persons "is better classified as sales promotion." Becker
did not have any education, special qualifications, or
professional skills in plastics materials or plastics recycling.
A taxpayer may rely upon his adviser's expertise (in these cases,
accounting and tax advice), but it is not reasonable or prudent
to rely upon a tax adviser regarding matters outside of his field
of expertise or with respect to facts that he does not verify.
See David v. Commissioner, 43 F.3d at 789-790; Goldman v.
Commissioner, 39 F.3d at 408; Skeen v. Commissioner, 864 F.2d 93
(9th Cir. 1989), affg. Patin v. Commissioner, 88 T.C. 1086
(1987); Lax v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-329; Sacks v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-217; Rogers v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1990-619; see also Estate of Busch v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1996-342, Spears v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-341, with
respect to Becker's advice in Plastics Recycling cases.
c. Steele and Sprague
Petitioners Zenkel and Blount purport to have relied on
advisers other than or in addition to Becker. The only person
with whom Blount discussed the Plastics Recycling transactions
was Sprague, who in turn had spoken with Becker and Leicht.
Page: Previous 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011