- 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