- 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