- 8 - could not have provided him with the expertise necessary for determining whether the partnership was viable and had the potential to be profitable. Petitioners also relied on Mr. Jones' and Mr. Schutz' advice. Unfortunately, petitioners never asked whether Mr. Jones had any expertise in agriculture or research and development, nor even if he had a college education. Mr. Schutz had no expertise in agriculture or research and development issues. We have no evidence of the extent to which Mr. Schutz examined the offering. Petitioners did not establish that Mr. Jones or Mr. Schutz had the expertise and knowledge of the pertinent facts to provide informed advice on the investment in Utah I. Petitioners claim that they were unsophisticated investors like the taxpayers in Dyckman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999- 79. They claim this is demonstrated by the fact that they lost around $100,000 on their various investments. The facts of Dyckman are different from the facts of this case. In Dyckman, the taxpayers relied on their long-time friend who was a C.P.A.; they were not aware that the investment in the partnership was designed to produce tax benefits; and they had virtually no experience in financial or investment matters. Id. Petitioners relied on Mr. Jones, whose educational background they were unaware of; they were aware that the investment would producePage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011