Michael G. Harvey and Penny B. Harvey - Page 10




                                       - 10 -                                         
               Petitioners argue that reliance on an adviser who is a                 
          promoter may be reasonable under precedents from the Court of               
          Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, to which appeal lies in this case.           
          The first case petitioners cite is Anderson v. Commissioner,                
          supra.  In Anderson, the taxpayer relied on both an investment              
          adviser and an accountant in making his investment.  The court              
          found that reliance on the investment adviser, who received a               
          commission for selling the investment to the taxpayer, was                  
          reasonable under the circumstances of the case.  However, the               
          court stressed that the investment adviser was not affiliated               
          with the corporation which had entered into the agreement with              
          the taxpayers.  On the contrary, the adviser was an independent             
          insurance agent and registered securities dealer who presumably             
          would have received a commission on any investment he sold to the           
          taxpayer.  See id. at 1271.                                                 
               The second case petitioners cite is the unpublished opinion            
          of Gilmore & Wilson Constr. Co. v. Commissioner, 166 F.3d 1221,             
          83 AFTR 2d 99-457, 99-1 USTC par. 50,186 (10th Cir. 1999), affg.            
          Estate of Hogard v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-174.3  In that            


          3Gilmore & Wilson Constr. Co. is an unpublished opinion of                  
          the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.  Although unpublished           
          decisions generally are not binding precedent in the Tenth                  
          Circuit and citation thereto is disfavored, that court allows               
          citation to such a decision where “(1) it has persuasive value              
          with respect to a material issue that has not been addressed in a           
          published opinion; and (2) it would assist the court in its                 
          disposition.”  10th Cir. Rule 36.3.  Gilmore & Wilson Constr. Co.           
                                                             (continued...)           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011