- 7 - Petitioners were well aware of the substantial tax savings the investment would provide. Petitioners argued that giving Utah I $23,000 for a $10,000 tax savings would not be a logical tax dodge. But at the time they invested, petitioners expected to receive both the tax benefits and the royalties and profits from the investment. They did not expect to lose the money invested. In making the decision to invest in Utah I, petitioners relied on a cursory reading of the offering and an article. Petitioners did not have any expertise in or knowledge of jojoba farming, and they did not seek the advice of an expert in this area. The offering clearly stated that the investment was risky. Petitioners did not have an experienced attorney review the offering as the offering itself suggested. In contrast to their approach to this investment, petitioner relied upon attorneys for legal advice in the formation of a personal service corporation, in the establishment of the corporation’s pension plans, in the preparation of contracts with doctors, and in the preparation of wills and estate plans. A close reading of the offering by an experienced attorney would have alerted petitioners that the "partnership was merely a passive investor seeking royalty returns pursuant to the licensing agreement." Fawson v. Commissioner, supra. Petitioner's minimal reading about jojobaPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011