- 25 -
him with certain tax papers and information on Roadmaster
Leasing. However, Mr. Schole (Roadmaster Leasing’s promoter)
previously arranged for Mr. Candelario to perform Roadmaster
Leasing’s tax work. Indeed, Mr. Candelario had collaborated and
jointly participated with Mr. Schole in his sales effort to have
petitioner invest in Roadmaster Leasing. Mr. Candelario was thus
hardly a disinterested, objective adviser, and petitioner could
not reasonably rely on Mr. Candelario’s tax advice in claiming
partnership loss deductions from Roadmaster Leasing. See Rybak
v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 524, 565 (1988).
Accordingly, we hold that for 1992 petitioner is liable for
a penalty under section 6662 for substantial understatement of
his income tax with respect to the understatement attributable to
his disallowed Villa del Mar legal expenses and his disallowed
Amazona and Roadmaster Leasing losses. Similarly, we hold that
for 1993 and 1995 he is liable for a penalty under section 6662
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011