- 37 -
by others. However, petitioners failed to take adequately into
account Alter's lack of education and experience in plastics
materials and plastics recycling, and the limited nature of his
investigation of the Plastics Recycling transactions. Moreover,
it was Feinstein who reviewed the other tax shelters for
petitioners, not Alter, and Feinstein was primarily responsible
for reviewing the Plastics Recycling transactions. Petitioners
were well aware that Feinstein handled such work for Alter. In
their posttrial briefs, petitioners state that they "came to
value Feinstein's wisdom and ability to analyze financial data
and appraise the economic potential of a prospective investment."
Unlike Alter, however, Feinstein did not invest in the Plastics
Recycling transactions. In any event, under the circumstances of
these cases, petitioners' characterization of how Alter and/or
Feinstein presented the Plastics Recycling transactions to them
is not dispositive of the issue. See Buck v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1997-191.
Alter and Feinstein conducted a limited investigation of the
Plastics Recycling transactions. Alter read the offering
materials, discussed the investment with others at Shea & Gould,
and spoke to Winer. The colleagues he spoke to included
Hirshfield, Carroll, Parker, and Ferraro, but he primarily relied
upon Feinstein, in whom Alter indicated he reposed particular
confidence based upon their long professional association. Alter
recalled the investigation by his colleagues at Shea & Gould in
Page: Previous 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011