- 14 -
had reviewed the investment materials prior to completing the
return. The court noted that “nothing in the record supports a
finding that Smith [the accountant] did not independently assess
the Heasleys’ tax liability or that Danner [the financial
consultant] influenced Smith’s calculations.” Id. at 384 n.9.
Heasley is not applicable to the case at hand. First,
although with limited investment experience, petitioner is highly
educated and was employed as a full professor at the time
petitioners made their investment. Second, we have found
petitioners’ reliance on Mr. Trimboli to be unreasonable because
he was not an independent adviser. Furthermore, petitioners
relied solely on one individual, and that individual both sold
them their investment and advised them as to its legal effect
without independently researching the legal issues involved.
Finally, petitioners cite Hummer v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1988-528, for the proposition that taxpayers cannot be negligent
where the relevant legal issue was “not well settled”.
Petitioners, however, did not receive substantive advice
concerning the deduction from anyone independent of the
investment, nor did they conduct their own investigation into the
propriety of the deduction. Indeed, there is no indication that
petitioners ever were aware of the nature of the purportedly
uncertain legal issues involved. Petitioners may not rely upon a
“lack of warning” as a defense to negligence where no reasonable
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