- 32 -
partnership. Equally significant, the record suggests that
petitioner’s conversation with Dr. Yermanos was, at best,
incidental to other business that petitioner had in the area, as
the following colloquy between petitioner and respondent’s
counsel demonstrates:
Q: This Dr. Yermanos, where was he-–where was he
located?
A: He was with the University of California at
Riverside in the Ag–-I don’t know how familiar you are
with Riverside, but they have a complete research–-oh,
there originally was probably 300 acres in there that
they–-you know, they–-oh, what do I want to say, they
experiment. Well, they put like greenhouses over a
citrus tree and then give it a disease and see what it
does. So, it’s a research area that the University of
California uses and it’s an ag research.
Q: And you said you spoke with him once?
A: That’s correct, yeah.
Q: What did you show him, anything?
A: No. He–-basically, I had a friend of mine who
did these greenhouses. The Luminex Corporation built
these greenhouses, and I was out there seeing him, and
he was out there by where the plants were and stuff,
and so I talked to him, you know, asked him about–-you
know, questions about it.
Q: Okay. And so you didn’t have an appointment
to meet him or anything.
A: No. No, I did not.
In short, there is simply nothing in the record to indicate
that this individual at the University of California provided any
advice to petitioner that would absolve him from liability for
the additions to tax for negligence.
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011