- 18 -
The instant case is readily distinguishable from Dyckman v.
Commissioner, supra, and Zidanich v. Commissioner, supra. At the
time he invested in Whitman, petitioner was a relatively
sophisticated investor, actively seeking out a variety of
investments, including tax-oriented investments or speculations.
Petitioner met personally with Clothier several times each year
to discuss investment opportunities. Prior to their investment
in Whitman in 1982, petitioners invested without the advice of
their accountant in a condominium in Maui, Hawaii, and a
lithographic print business, and maintained a brokerage account
at Merrill Lynch. In addition, petitioner had made other
investments with Clothier, including Shaman, a clothing import
company that distributed merchandise through stores in the
Seattle metropolitan area. Petitioners’ investment experience
significantly surpasses the experience of other taxpayers who we
have found negligent under section 6653 for improperly sheltering
income. See, e.g., McPike v. Commissioner, supra (taxpayers had
no previous investment experience other than their personal
residence).
We also view petitioner’s career path as relevant in
determining his level of business and financial sophistication.
Petitioner is a true success story, in the tradition of American
entrepreneurship. Petitioner cofounded a company in 1968. By
1982 he owned the company, and from operating the business he
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