- 59 -
independently confirmed the value of the Sentinel EPE recycler.
Maxfield relied on the offering memoranda, and in particular the
reports of Ulanoff and Burstein, for the value of the machines.
He related this to petitioners and cautioned them that the only
way to know if the representations made in the offering memoranda
were true would be to hire an independent appraiser or expert.
In the end, petitioners and Maxfield relied on insiders
and/or financially interested persons for the value of the
Sentinel EPE recyclers and the economic viability of the
Partnership transactions. See Vojticek v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1995-444, to the effect that advice from such persons "is
better classified as sales promotion." As petitioners knew or
certainly should have learned, Maxfield had no education, special
qualifications, or professional skills or experience in plastics
engineering, plastics recycling, or plastics materials. A
taxpayer may rely upon his adviser's expertise, but it is not
reasonable or prudent to rely upon an adviser regarding matters
outside of his field of expertise or with respect to facts that
he does not verify. See David v. Commissioner, 43 F.3d at 789-
790; Goldman v. Commissioner, 39 F.3d at 408; Skeen v.
Commissioner, 864 F.2d 93 (9th Cir. 1989), affg. Patin v.
Commissioner, 88 T.C. 1086 (1987); Lax v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1994-329; Sacks v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-217;
Rogers v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1990-619.
Page: Previous 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011