- 13 -
was a financial planner, as well as an accountant, and the
taxpayers in that case established that that adviser had investi-
gated the partnership involved in that case and had concluded and
advised the taxpayers therein that that partnership was of "high
quality", that it would "best satisfy * * * [their] investment
goals", that he had spoken to representatives of that partner-
ship, and that he was satisfied with the investment. Reile v.
Commissioner, supra.
In Eubanks v. Commissioner, supra, certain of the taxpayers
were physicians (taxpayer-physicians) who owned and operated a
medical clinic (clinic) that leased certain space (leased space)
in an office building. The clinic assigned its rights under that
lease to a real estate partnership (Partnership) in which those
taxpayer-physicians were partners, and the Partnership made
certain expenditures to renovate the leased space and subleased
it back to the clinic. The taxpayers in Eubanks relied upon
professional tax return preparers to prepare their individual
returns and the Partnership's Form 1065. The Partnership claimed
qualified rehabilitation expenditures in its Form 1065, and the
taxpayer-physicians claimed investment tax credits arising from
their respective shares of the Partnership's claimed rehabilita-
tion expenditures. Although the taxpayer-physicians in Eubanks
v. Commissioner, supra, testified that they provided their return
preparers with all the information that they had regarding their
tax returns, they could not specifically state whether that
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