- 53 -
redemption of his MSSTA stock; and the Scotts would pay AST only
a nominal cash amount to acquire a 21-percent stock interest in
that company.
As for petitioners' contention regarding Mr. Scott's and
MSSTA's reliance on the advice of Mr. Bosworth, we have found
that Mr. Bosworth did not hold himself out to be an expert in tax
matters. In fact, Mr. Bosworth agreed to represent MSSTA and Mr.
Scott in the MSSTA transaction only after Mr. Scott informed him
that Mr. Scott had retained Mr. Hrynik, a C.P.A., to advise on
tax matters. On the instant record, we reject petitioners' con-
tention regarding Mr. Scott's and MSSTA's reliance on Mr.
Bosworth for tax advice regarding the MSSTA transaction.
As for petitioners' assertion regarding Mr. Scott's and
MSSTA's reliance on Mr. Hrynik for tax advice with respect to the
MSSTA transaction, we note initially that we found Mr. Hrynik to
be a credible witness at trial. Where the testimony of Mr.
Hrynik and Mr. Scott was conflicting, we relied on Mr. Hrynik's
testimony. Mr. Hrynik testified that he did not consider his
advice that MSSTA's tax liability would not exceed $10,000 to
constitute his opinion as to whether the $300,000 purchase price,
which the Bosworth letter represented to him was the amount to be
reported to all tax authorities as the purchase price for MSSTA's
assets, would be sustained if MSSTA's return were audited by the
Service. Mr. Hrynik's advice about MSSTA's tax liability as a
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