- 24 -
he was marketing the partnership interests. We have consistently
held that advice from such persons is better classified as sales
promotion. See Singer v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-325;
Vojticek v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-444. We note that
Margolin did not testify, and that circumstance suggests that if
he had testified, his testimony would have been unfavorable to
petitioners. See Wichita Terminal Elevator Co. v. Commissioner,
6 T.C. 1158, 1165 (1946), affd. 162 F.2d 513 (10th Cir. 1947).
The commission for selling units under the Whitman promotion was
equal to 10 percent of the sales price. See Barber v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-372. Clothier’s reliance on his
client, Lee Connel, was also unreasonable. Connel was an
engineer by profession. He had no experience with plastics
recycling. Clothier unreasonably assumed that Connel’s
engineering background would qualify him to make a reliable
evaluation of the recyclers with minimal effort. Even if Connel
were qualified, reliance on Connel would be unreasonable because
there is no evidence that Connel ever saw the recyclers. Connel
did not testify at trial, and our knowledge of his alleged
investigation is based entirely on Clothier’s vague recollection.
Under these circumstances, we are convinced that Clothier
was not concerned with Whitman’s economic or business aspects.
Rather, Clothier understood that Whitman was a tax shelter.
Clothier failed to consult an independent appraiser or anyone
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