- 33 -
establish the fair market value of the recyclers and the
viability or bona fides of the SAB transactions. Becker never
assumed such responsibility, and he fully described the
particulars of his investigation, taking care not to
mischaracterize it as “due diligence”.
In the end, petitioners indirectly and Becker directly
relied upon PI personnel for the value of the recyclers and the
economic viability of the SAB Foam transactions. See Vojticek v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-444, to the effect that advice from
such persons “is better classified as sales promotion.” As
explained above, Becker did not have any education, special
qualifications, or professional skills in plastics materials or
plastics recycling. A taxpayer may rely upon his adviser’s
advice and expertise (in this case accounting and tax advice)
only where such reliance is objectively reasonable, but it is not
reasonable or prudent to rely upon a tax adviser regarding
matters outside his field of expertise or with respect to facts
that he does not verify. See Addington v. Commissioner, 205 F.3d
at 58; Goldman v. Commissioner, 39 F.3d at 408; Skeen v.
Commissioner, 864 F.2d 93 (9th Cir. 1989), affg. Patin v.
Commissioner, 88 T.C. 1086 (1987); Lax v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1994-329, affd. 72 F.3d 123 (3d Cir. 1995); Rogers v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1990-619.
Page: Previous 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011