- 11 -
tioner relied on Mr. Amsterdam's representation that Ridge Energy
was a "good investment". In addition, although petitioner's
testimony demonstrated that he understood that Ridge Energy
proposed to lease the energy systems from Saxon Energy and, in
turn, lease them to various businesses, he did not know at the
time he invested in Ridge Energy how those systems were to be
marketed, nor did he know specifically how Ridge Energy was to
make a profit. Moreover, when petitioner was asked on direct
examination about whether he was concerned that during 1983 he
invested approximately $13,000 in Ridge Energy and yet claimed in
his 1983 return a loss of $13,919 and an investment tax credit of
$20,899 with respect to that partnership, petitioner replied:
"Well, I didn't have an opinion about it. I thought that the
deductions which were figured out by the certified public accoun-
tant would be correct." There is no evidence in the record
indicating that petitioners questioned Mr. Amsterdam about the
loss and the credit claimed in their 1983 return with respect to
Ridge Energy. This Court and other courts have found that a
reasonable and prudent person would have asked a competent tax
adviser whether a windfall similar to the one realized by peti-
tioners were "'too good to be true.'" See, e.g., Pasternak v.
Commissioner, 990 F.2d 893, 903 (6th Cir. 1993) (quoting McCrary
v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 827, 850 (1989)), affg. Donahue v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1991-181.
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