- 24 -
has not suggested the name of any representative but Marcus, this
record suggests a reasonable likelihood that Marcus received a
commission as petitioner's offeree representative.
Petitioner testified that his accountant, Hefter, reviewed
the offering memorandum on petitioner's behalf. According to
petitioner, after Hefter reviewed it, and in response to
petitioner's questions, Hefter indicated that "it appeared to be
sound", that the tax opinion "appeared to be accurate", and that
"it appeared to be a valid investment based on the documents."
(Emphasis added.) Petitioner did not indicate how much time and
effort Hefter devoted to his review of the offering memorandum.
Nor did he claim that Hefter personally investigated any aspect
of the Resource transactions. Petitioner even stated that
whatever comments he received from Hefter were "based on the
documents". Petitioner acknowledged that Hefter's area of
expertise was accounting, and petitioner never suggested that
Hefter had any experience or expertise in plastics materials or
plastics recycling. Petitioner provided no information as to the
extent or nature of Hefter's knowledge of the income tax laws
beyond the information that he was a practicing accountant who
prepared petitioners' tax returns.
Petitioner did not call Marcus or Hefter to testify in this
case, and his failure to do so gives rise to the inference that
their testimony would not have been favorable to petitioners.
See Mecom v. Commissioner, 101 T.C. 374, 386 (1993), affd.
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011