- 9 -
tax laws is a defense to the negligence penalties. See
Chamberlain v. Commissioner, supra at 732. The advice must be
objectively 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.
There is little evidence in the record supporting
petitioners’ argument that they were not negligent. There is no
testimony in the record from the person primarily involved with
the investment, Mr. Robnett. Although Ms. Robnett testified that
she--not her husband--was primarily involved in the Yuma Mesa
investment, the stipulations of the parties and the evidence show
otherwise. The parties stipulated that it was Mr. Robnett who
acquired the interests in the partnership, executed the
subscription agreement, executed the promissory note, and
remitted the cash payment. The evidence in the record supports
these stipulations: The Schedule K-1 issued by the partnership
was issued solely to Mr. Robnett. There is also no testimony in
the record from Mr. Meinke, the person upon whom petitioners are
claiming reliance and basing their argument that they are not
negligent. The explanations offered for the absence of testimony
from Mr. Robnett and Mr. Meinke were not satisfactory, and in the
absence of the testimony we assume that their testimony would not
have been favorable to petitioners. See Mecom v. Commissioner,
101 T.C. 374, 386 (1993), affd. 40 F.3d 385 (5th Cir. 1994).
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