- 40 -
A: Right. Complex tax questions, things like
that.
In sum, we do not think that petitioner’s professed reliance
on his brother’s advice was reasonable.
C. Petitioner’s Reliance on Thompson
Petitioner does not contend that he relied on Thompson in
making the investment in Whitman. However, after having made the
investment, petitioner contends that he relied on Thompson in
claiming the associated tax benefits on his income tax returns.
Petitioner also contends that such reliance was reasonable. We
acknowledge that neither Thompson nor his firm had any
relationship with either Winer or Whitman. However, for the
following reasons we disagree that petitioner’s professed
reliance on Thompson was reasonable.
First, Thompson was not an investment adviser. Indeed, he
did not consider himself qualified to provide investment advice,
and his practice was not to provide such advice. Thompson did
not purport to, nor did he, provide petitioner with investment
advice. Cf. Anderson v. Commissioner, 62 F.3d 1266, 1268 (10th
Cir. 1995) (wherein the taxpayers relied on their own investment
adviser regarding the soundness of their investment), affg. T.C.
Memo. 1993-607.
Second, Thompson did not have any specialized knowledge
regarding the plastics recycling industry. In addition, Thompson
did not have any specialized knowledge regarding the nontax
Page: Previous 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011