- 84 -
taxpayer in Mauerman relied upon independent attorneys and
accountants for advice as to whether payments were properly
deductible or capitalized. The advice relied upon by the
taxpayer in Mauerman was within the scope of the advisers'
expertise, the interpretation of the tax laws as applied to
undisputed facts. In petitioners' cases, however, particularly
with respect to valuation, petitioners relied upon advice that
was outside the scope of expertise and experience of their
purported adviser. Maxfield had no education, special
qualifications, or professional skills or experience in plastics
engineering, plastics recycling, or plastics materials, nor did
he consider himself to be an investment analyst or even an expert
in tax shelters. Consequently, petitioners' reliance on the
Mauerman case is rejected.
We hold that petitioners did not have a reasonable basis for
the adjusted bases or valuations claimed on their tax returns
with respect to their investments in the Partnerships. In these
cases, respondent could find that petitioners' respective
reliance on the offering materials and Maxfield was unreasonable.
The records in these cases do not establish an abuse of
discretion on the part of respondent but support respondent's
position. We hold that respondent's refusal to waive the section
6659 additions to tax in these cases is not an abuse of
discretion. Petitioners are liable for the respective section
6659 additions to tax at the rate of 30 percent of the
Page: Previous 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011