Don L. and Lora Christensen - Page 19




                                       - 19 -                                         

          general partner and the lack of warning signs could reasonably              
          lead investors to believe they were entitled to deductions in               
          light of the undeveloped state of the law regarding section 174.            
          See Kantor v. Commissioner, 998 F.2d 1514 (9th Cir. 1993), affg.            
          in part and revg. in part T.C. Memo. 1990-380.  In its holding,             
          the Ninth Circuit explained that the Supreme Court's decision in            
          Snow v. Commissioner, 416 U.S. 500 (1974), left unclear the                 
          extent to which research must be "in connection with" a trade or            
          business for purposes of qualifying for an immediate deduction              
          under section 174.  However, in the instant case, the partnership           
          was neither engaged in a trade or business nor conducting                   
          research and development, either directly or indirectly.                    
          Additionally, the experience in jojoba research and development             
          of the general partner of Blythe II, Mr. Kellen, was                        
          questionable, at best, as evidenced by conflicting statements in            
          the offering.  Also, it is apparent from the evidence presented             
          in this case that Mr. Kellen had minimal involvement in the                 
          partnership.  Petitioners are precluded from relying upon a "lack           
          of warning" as a defense to negligence, when there is no evidence           
          that a reasonable investigation was ever made, and the offering             
          materials contained many warnings of the tax risks associated               
          with the investment.                                                        
               On this record, the Court finds that petitioners did not               
          exercise the due care of reasonable and ordinarily prudent                  





Page:  Previous  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011