- 53 -
scope of the advisers' expertise, the interpretation of the tax
laws as applied to undisputed facts. In the present case,
however, particularly with respect to valuation, petitioner
relied upon advice which was outside the scope of expertise and
experience of the purported adviser. Bach had no education,
special qualifications, or professional skills or experience in
plastics engineering, plastics recycling, or plastics materials.
Consequently, we consider petitioners' reliance on the Mauerman
case inapplicable.
We hold that petitioners did not have a reasonable basis for
the adjusted bases or valuations claimed on their 1981 tax return
with respect to their investment in Plymouth. In this case,
respondent could find that petitioner's reliance on Bach was
unreasonable. The record in this case does not establish an
abuse of discretion on the part of respondent but supports
respondent's position. We hold that respondent's refusal to
waive the section 6659 addition to tax in this case is not an
abuse of discretion. Petitioners are liable for the section 6659
addition to tax at the rate of 30 percent of the underpayment of
tax attributable to the disallowed investment tax and business
energy credits. Respondent is sustained on this issue.
C. Petitioners' Motion for Leave To File Motion for Decision
Ordering Relief from the Negligence Penalty and the Penalty Rate
of Interest and To File Supporting Memorandum of Law
Approximately 4 months after the trial of this case,
petitioners filed a Motion For Leave to File Motion for Decision
Page: Previous 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011