- 37 -
made any separate payment for professional services by Dooskin
and Sacco, and consequently they could not expect the accountants
to do more than read the memorandum for form and apparent
professionalism, potential benefits, and obvious dangers.
C. Petitioners’ Relationship With Becker and Miller
Regardless of the foregoing, petitioners contend that
petitioner’s alleged “deep and longstanding professional
relationship” with his advisers justified his reliance on them.
We disagree. See Barlow v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-339;
cf. Dyckman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-79; Zidanich v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-382. Petitioner was sufficiently
experienced and sophisticated to know that SAB Foam was a tax
shelter, and that the value of the transaction depended on the
value of the underlying assets, and he failed to consult either
an independent appraiser or anyone with expertise in plastics
recycling.
In addition, the evidence does not support petitioners’
claims that he had a unique and special relationship with his
advisers Becker and Miller. Cf. Dyckman v. Commissioner, supra
(absolving taxpayers from the negligence penalty, in part,
because of the long-term special relationship of trust and
friendship between the taxpayers and their adviser).
First, petitioner claims to have a particularly close
relationship with Becker. Petitioner testified that he “had an
Page: Previous 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011