Ira S. Greene and Robin C. Greene - Page 29

                                       - 29 -                                         
          to give such advice.2  Petitioner, in contrast, purports to have            
          relied upon the advice of an attorney and an accountant for the             
          value of a purportedly technologically advanced plastics                    
          recycling machine and the economic viability of the Resource                
          transaction.  Yet neither of petitioner's purported advisers had            
          any expertise in plastics materials or plastics recycling.                  
          Further, petitioner did not learn whether the attorney had                  
          researched or investigated Resource or received a commission for            
          the sale of a partnership share to him, and petitioner knew that            
          the accountant had not investigated or confirmed any of the                 
          representations in the offering memorandum.  We consider                    
          petitioners' reliance on the Heasley, Sammons, Braddock, Ewing,             
          and Hill cases misplaced.                                                   
               4.  Conclusion as to Negligence                                        
               Under the circumstances of this case, petitioners failed to            
          exercise due care in claiming a large loss deduction and tax                


          2    The taxpayers in Sammons v. Commissioner, 838 F.2d 330, 337            
          (9th Cir. 1988), affg. in part and revg. in part T.C. Memo. 1986-           
          318, relied upon a "reasonably debatable" valuation by one of               
          five appraisers--two of whom were exceptionally qualified--for              
          the value of certain charitable deduction property.  In Braddock            
          v. Commissioner, 95 T.C. 639 (1990), the taxpayers relied upon an           
          adviser who claimed tax expertise with respect to a reporting               
          issue that had never before been considered by any court, and the           
          answer to which was not entirely clear from the relevant                    
          statutory language.  The taxpayers in Ewing v. Commissioner, 91             
          T.C. 396 (1988), affd. without published opinion 940 F.2d 1534              
          (9th Cir. 1991), read and relied upon a tax opinion prepared by             
          an attorney who at least two of the taxpayers had known and                 
          successfully dealt with for over 10 years.  In Hill v.                      
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-454, the taxpayer relied upon an              
          independent evaluation by his long-time accountant and a                    
          financial broker recommended by the accountant.                             



Page:  Previous  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011