- 13 -
Moreover, at trial Mr. McDevitt claimed that, at the time he
advised petitioner about Blythe I, he had prior experience with
agricultural partnerships and research and development
partnerships; yet, no evidence about the amount, scope, and
nature of such experience was produced. Mr. McDevitt failed to
conduct any independent investigation to determine whether the
specific research and development proposed to be conducted by or
on behalf of the partnership would have qualified for deductions
under section 174. It is also notable that Mr. McDevitt had no
background or experience in the area of Jojoba plants.
There is no evidence in the record to suggest that
petitioner or his wife ever questioned Mr. McDevitt about the
facts and/or legal analysis upon which he based his
recommendations. Further, the record is devoid of any evidence
that petitioner asked Mr. McDevitt to explain the Blythe I
investment to him, particularly those portions of the offering
that he had opted not to read or apparently was unable to
understand.
The facts in this case are similar to those in Glassley v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-206, in which this Court found that
the taxpayers:
acted on their fascination with the idea of
participating in a jojoba farming venture and their
satisfaction with tax benefits of expensing their
investments, which were clear to them from the
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011