- 27 -
637, 652-653 (1990), affd. without published opinion 956 F.2d 274
(9th Cir. 1992), affd. in part without published opinion sub nom.
Cowles v. Commissioner, 949 F.2d 401 (10th Cir. 1991).
It is also clear that petitioners could not reasonably rely
on the advice of the Plastics Recycling promoters with respect to
the substantive merits or the tax treatment of items in
connection with their investment in Clearwater. See Patin v.
Commissioner, 88 T.C. 1086, 1131 (1987), affd. without published
opinion 865 F.2d 1264 (5th Cir. 1989), affd. sub nom. Gomberg v.
Commissioner, 868 F.2d 865 (6th Cir. 1989), affd. sub nom. Skeen
v. Commissioner, 864 F.2d 93 (9th Cir. 1989), affd. per curiam
without published opinion sub nom. Hatheway v. Commissioner, 856
F.2d 186 (4th Cir. 1988); Kleiger v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1992-734. Advice from such individuals “is better classified as
sales promotion". Vojticek v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-444.
Petitioners also claim that their decision to invest was
greatly influenced by the nature of the transaction, guaranteeing
them a profit based on “conservative” assumptions regarding the
price of resin and minimal output by the recyclers. Based on
these assumptions, petitioners claim to have concluded that the
circular nature of the transaction in fact guaranteed them a
profit. In this regard, petitioners claim that the circuitous
nature of the transaction did not alarm them because petitioner
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011