- 13 -
their tax returns. Petitioners could not have had prior dealings
with Mr. Trimboli as a financial planner because he had no
experience in the field prior to 1983. Cf. Wright v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-288 (taxpayers reasonably relied
upon an individual who was recommended to them as a financial
adviser, who had a strong presence in the community as such, and
who misled the taxpayers concerning the propriety of an
investment). Thus, the relationship between petitioners and Mr.
Trimboli was not close enough or prolonged enough--either
personally or professionally--to merit special consideration in
the level of due care required by petitioners in this case.
With respect to his role as tax adviser,3 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
3We assume for the sake of argument that petitioners
approached Mr. Trimboli for substantive tax advice. There is no
evidence in the record that petitioners did more than rely on Mr.
Trimboli’s representation that Arid Land was a good financial
investment.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011