- 9 -
reasonable and must not be from one with an inherent conflict of
interest or from one with no knowledge concerning the matter upon
which the advice is given. See id.
The advice petitioner allegedly received from Mr. Meinke
fails as a defense to negligence due to the clear presence of a
conflict of interest. See id.; Rybak v. Commissioner, 91 T.C.
524, 565 (1988). Mr. Meinke was a promoter of the Yuma Mesa
partnership and was a principal in the related entities. Thus,
any reliance on Mr. Meinke by petitioner was not reasonable.
Petitioner asserts that she also received advice concerning
the proper tax treatment of the loss from Mr. Mussina. Mr.
Mussina was an accountant and attorney who had prepared tax
returns for petitioner and advised her concerning legal matters
such as the creation of a deferred compensation plan for her
professional association. The only evidence in the record
supporting petitioner’s assertion that she relied upon Mr.
Mussina is petitioner’s testimony that she made an inquiry into
the legality of the partnership, to which Mr. Mussina answered
that the partnership appeared to be “legal and properly put
together.” No testimony was given that she inquired into the
proper tax treatment of the partnership loss. No corroborating
evidence for the general advice was presented. The alleged
advice was sought before petitioner made her investment, and not
at the time she filed her return. Petitioner could not recall
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011