- 13 -
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
from an accountant concerning an investment was unreasonable
where the accountant had been retained by the investment
promoter); LaVerne v. Commissioner, supra; Rybak v. Commissioner,
supra.
Petitioners point to the standard set forth by the Fifth
Circuit Court of Appeals in Heasley v. Commissioner, 902 F.2d 380
(5th Cir. 1990), revg. T.C. Memo. 1988-408. In Heasley, the
court found that the taxpayers--who were moderate-income, blue-
collar investors with little education or prior investment
experience--were to be held to a lower standard of due care when
evaluating whether they were negligent in making an investment.
The court found that the taxpayers, the Heasleys, were not
negligent because, among other reasons, they had relied on
financial advisers. Id. at 384. The financial consultant who
had sold the Heasleys the investment had referred them to an
independent accountant for assistance in preparing their tax
return with respect to the investment. The accountant, in turn,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011