- 8 -
Petitioners argue that they are not liable for the additions
to tax under section 6653(a)(1) and (2) because petitioner
reasonably relied on his tax adviser when he invested in Ridge
Energy and they reasonably relied on that adviser when they
claimed in their 1983 return the loss and credit with respect to
that partnership.3 Petitioners contend that their reliance on
Mr. Amsterdam was reasonable because Mr. Amsterdam had been their
tax adviser from sometime around 1974 through the time of the
trial in this case; during that time they never had any problems
with Mr. Amsterdam's tax return preparation services; prior to
Mr. Amsterdam's recommending to petitioner that he invest in
Ridge Energy, petitioner had asked Mr. Amsterdam on several
occasions for recommendations regarding possible investment
opportunities, but Mr. Amsterdam declined to make any such
recommendations; and both Mr. Amsterdam and Mr. Coscia were
investors in Ridge Energy.
Respondent counters that petitioners were negligent in
relying on their tax adviser in investing in Ridge Energy and in
3 Petitioners argued at trial that, because this Court entered a
decision pursuant to the parties' agreement in Coscia v. Commis-
sioner, docket No. 11093-95S (Mar. 28, 1996), that the taxpayers
in that case are not liable for the additions to tax under sec.
6653(a)(1) and (2) with respect to adjustments attributable to
their investment in Ridge Energy, petitioners in this case should
not be held liable for those additions to tax. We reject that
argument. We are not bound in this case by any decision that we
entered in another case involving additions to tax imposed upon
another taxpayer who, like petitioner, was a partner in Ridge
Energy and that was based on the agreement of the parties in that
other case.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011