- 23 -
aspects of the contemplated venture. David v. Commissioner,
supra, Goldman v. Commissioner, supra; Freytag v. Commissioner,
supra; Beck v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 557 (1985); Buck v.
Commissioner, supra; Lax v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-329,
affd. without published opinion 72 F.3d 123 (3d Cir. 1995); Sacks
v. Commissioner, supra; Steerman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1993-447; Rogers v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1990-619; see also
the Plastics Recycling cases cited in Sann v. Commissioner,
supra.
Petitioner testified that Marcus introduced the Resource
transaction to him and advised that "he thought it was a good
investment to make." Like petitioner, Marcus is an attorney
specializing in bankruptcy law. Petitioner does not claim that
Marcus had any education or experience in plastics materials or
plastics recycling. Marcus and petitioner did not discuss
Resource or the Plastics Recycling transactions in any depth.
Indeed, petitioner did not learn how Marcus became aware of the
Plastics Recycling transactions, what Marcus did, if anything, to
investigate Resource or the Plastics Recycling transactions, or
even whether Marcus received a commission as a result of
petitioner's investment. As an offeree representative, Marcus
would have been entitled to a commission in the amount of $2,500
as a result of petitioner's investment in Resource. Since the
commission would have been paid by default to the general partner
if no offeree representative had claimed it, and since petitioner
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011