- 25 -
without published opinion 40 F.3d 385 (5th Cir. 1994); Pollack v.
Commissioner, 47 T.C. 92, 108 (1966), affd. 392 F.2d 409 (5th
Cir. 1968); Wichita Terminal Elevator Co. v. Commissioner, 6 T.C.
1158, 1165 (1946), affd. 162 F.2d 513 (10th Cir. 1947); Sacks v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-217. Petitioner's memory proved
selective at trial. We found his testimony self-serving and at
times incredible, and we are not required to accept it as true.
Wood v. Commissioner, 338 F.2d 602, 605 (9th Cir. 1964), affg. 41
T.C. 593 (1964); Niedringhaus v. Commissioner, 99 T.C. 202, 212
(1992); Tokarski v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 74, 77 (1986).
We hold that petitioner's purported reliance on Marcus and
Hefter was not reasonable, not in good faith, and not based upon
full disclosure. Neither Marcus nor Hefter had any experience or
expertise in plastics materials or plastics recycling.
Petitioner did not know, and did not ask, whether Marcus had
researched or investigated Resource or the Plastics Recycling
transactions. The record is consistent with the conclusion that
Marcus received a commission as the "offeree representative" in
connection with the sale of a partnership interest to petitioner.
Hefter did nothing more than review the offering memorandum and
could only offer that the Resource transaction "appeared" valid
based on the representations therein. A taxpayer may rely upon
his advisers' expertise (in this case bankruptcy law and
accounting), but it is not reasonable or prudent to rely upon an
adviser regarding matters outside of his field of expertise or
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011