- 17 -
community as such, and who misled the taxpayers concerning the
propriety of an investment). Thus, the relationships between
petitioners and Mr. Trimboli were not close enough or prolonged
enough--either personally or professionally--to merit special
consideration in the level of due care required by petitioners in
these cases.
With respect to his role as tax adviser,6 Mr. Trimboli
largely relied on the opinion letter addressed to Arid Land’s
general partner, Mr. Cole. There is little to indicate that Mr.
Trimboli researched the issues himself thoroughly enough to come
to any independent conclusions concerning the propriety of the
deductions. We find that Mr. Trimboli’s reliance on the opinion
letter further supports our conclusion that Mr. Trimboli did not
render independent, objective advice concerning the propriety of
the partnership’s position on tax issues. Thus, we do not accept
petitioners’ assertion that Mr. Trimboli’s reliance on the
opinion letter should itself insulate petitioners from the
negligence additions to tax.
Because Mr. Trimboli was not an independent adviser,
petitioners’ reliance on any advice from him was not reasonable.
Bello v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-56 (reliance on advice
6We assume for the sake of argument that petitioners
approached Mr. Trimboli for substantive tax advice. There is no
evidence in the record that any petitioner did more than rely on
Mr. Trimboli’s representation that Arid Land was a good financial
investment.
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