- 14 -
therefore, the details in this record surrounding his advice to
petitioners about Blythe II are scant. Petitioner provided Mr.
Meyers with a copy of the offering and asked Mr. Meyers to review
the same and advise petitioners whether or not to invest in
Blythe II. Mr. Meyers advised petitioner that Blythe II "looked
okay" to him and that the promoters, in petitioner's words, were
"not trying to pull any funny stuff". Petitioner admitted that
he sought Mr. Meyers' advice only with respect to the tax aspects
of the investment. The record is devoid of any evidence to show
that Mr. Meyers gave petitioners a written opinion about the
investment, or that he conducted any independent research or
consulted any type of agricultural or jojoba plant expert about
the investment. The record in this case indicates that Mr.
Meyers relied solely on the representations made in the offering
in rendering his advice to petitioners.
Moreover, the record lacks evidence to show whether Mr.
Meyers had any previous experience with the deductibility of
research and development expenses at the time he advised
petitioners about Blythe II. These types of expenses would have
allowed petitioners certain tax benefits above and beyond what
would have been provided by an ordinary business deduction.
There is no evidence in the record to suggest that Mr. Meyers
conducted any independent investigation to determine whether the
specific R&D proposed to be conducted by or on behalf of the
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011