Richard E. & Elizabeth S. Nilsen - Page 13




                                       - 13 -                                         

               Secondly, in making their investment in Blythe II,                     
          petitioners relied on the advice of their certified public                  
          accountant, Mr. Mathis, Mr. Sheets, who was a promoter for the              
          partnership, and petitioner's brief conversation with a local               
          jeweler about the prospects for the use of jojoba bean oil in the           
          watch and jewelry industry.  Mr. Mathis, admittedly, made only a            
          cursory review of the offering and advised petitioners that,                
          based on what he had read in the offering, there was some basis             
          for the investment, there would be some tax advantages, and the             
          investment had, "at least, some potential".  Mr. Mathis testified           
          that the subject tax deductions appeared reasonable to him                  
          because they were "one for one" deductions rather than the                  
          "multiple write-off kind of investments that were floating around           
          at that time."  Mr. Mathis did not give petitioners a written               
          opinion about the investment, nor did he conduct any independent            
          research or consult any type of agricultural or jojoba plant                
          expert about the investment.  Instead, he relied solely on the              
          representations made in the offering.                                       
               Moreover, when questioned by this Court, Mr. Mathis admitted           
          that, at the time he advised petitioners about Blythe II, he had            
          rarely been presented with a question concerning research and               
          development expenses, and he realized that such expenses would              
          have allowed petitioners certain tax benefits above and beyond              
          what would have been provided by an ordinary business deduction.            





Page:  Previous  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011