- 20 -
founding and management of his own business. We would hesitate
to call him an "unsophisticated" investor.
Petitioner, however, attempted at trial to demonstrate to
the Court his lack of sophistication. He testified both on
direct and cross-examination that because the partnership was
assigned a tax shelter number by the IRS, he thought the IRS had
"approved" the shelter. He never asked Corman if this were true,
testifying that he believed it as a "matter of trust". Yet,
petitioner identified a Mid Continent subscription agreement that
he introduced into evidence. He testified that he reviewed the
agreement before deciding to invest in Mid Continent. A
paragraph in the agreement cautions the reader that no "Federal
governmental authority has made any finding or determination
relating to the fairness for public investment" in the
partnership and that there has been and will be no Federal
recommendation or endorsement of the partnership.
Petitioner testified that he invested in the partnership
relying on the advice of Corman and other partnership investors.
It appears from the record that Corman was paid to perform
accounting services for Classic Gallery, not to give investment
advice to petitioners. Petitioner's testimony was also rather
vague as to just what specific investment advice Corman gave him
about the partnership other than that it was a "good" investment.
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011