- 29 -
Bramnick's obvious involvement in this matter, petitioner
purports to have relied on Bach.
Bach does not have any education, experience, or expertise
in engineering, plastics materials, or plastics recycling. He
indicated that his lack of technical background hindered his
investigation of Plymouth and the Sentinel EPE recycler. Bach
acknowledged that he had no competence to value the machines; yet
he did not independently confirm their value or the economic
viability of the Plastics Recycling transactions. Instead, he
relied on the offering memorandum and representations by insiders
for the value of the machines and the economic viability of the
Plastics Recycling transactions. See Vojticek v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1995-444, to the effect that advice from such persons
"is better classified as sales promotion."
The purported value of the Sentinel EPE recycler generated
the deductions and credits in this case, and that circumstance
was reflected in the Plymouth offering memorandum. Petitioners
did not read the offering memorandum, but Bach did. Certainly
Bach recognized and understood the nature of the tax benefits,
and he discussed Plymouth and his investigation with Bramnick and
petitioner. In his discussions with Bach and Bramnick,
petitioner learned or should have learned about the amount and
nature of the tax benefits. Indeed, the tax benefits involved
herein were not inconsequential and certainly would have been of
interest to petitioners in a year in which they recognized in
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011