- 7 -
Prior to investing in San Nicholas, petitioner did not
consult any expert in either farming or agriculture or jojoba,
nor did petitioner consult any expert in research and
development.
Prior to investing in San Nicholas, petitioner did not
consult any attorney or accountant.4
Prior to investing in San Nicholas, petitioner did not visit
the plantation site, nor did he know where it was located.
Petitioner was influenced to invest in San Nicholas by the
fact that Mr. Kellen, his friend and business associate, had done
so.5 Indeed, prior to investing, petitioner spoke with no
individual other than Mr. Kellen. Petitioner was also influenced
to invest by his belief that an investment in San Nicholas
offered tax benefits.
4
Although Mr. Kellen was an attorney, he never rendered any legal
advice to petitioner concerning either San Nicholas or the
advisability of investing therein. Indeed, petitioner never
consulted Mr. Kellen in his capacity as an attorney; rather,
petitioner consulted Mr. Kellen solely as a friend and business
associate.
In addition, although petitioner may have shown the private
placement memorandum dated Oct. 10, 1983, see infra “D” and “F”,
to his accountant and return preparer Lloyd Maryanov, see infra
“G”, petitioner only did so after investing in San Nicholas.
5
Mr. Kellen’s investment in San Nicholas also culminated in a
case in this Court. See Kellen v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-
19; see also Utah Jojoba I Research v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1998-6, discussed infra in subdivision “I” of the Findings of
Fact, regarding Mr. Kellen’s involvement in another jojoba
partnership.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011