- 26 -
reliable and Miller specifically stated so. Neither Ulanoff nor
Burstein was an expert in plastics or plastics recycling, and
both relied on information provided by PI and other parties
related to the transaction in providing their reports. In
addition, Ulanoff and Burstein each owned an interest in at least
one partnership that owned recyclers as part of the Plastics
Recycling program. See, e.g., Jaroff v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1996-527. Petitioner did not independently obtain these
individuals’ advice but rather received their reports as part of
the promotional material received from SAB Foam. Reliance on the
memorandum, and the reports therein, is simply an inadequate
defense for petitioner. Given the well-disclosed fact that the
investment and energy tax credits generated by SAB Foam depended
on the fair market value of the recyclers, petitioner should have
made inquiries about the value of the recyclers rather than
merely relying on the promotional reports of Ulanoff and
Burstein.
2. Becker
As we have recited above, petitioner contends that both he
and his partner, Cohen, had a special relationship with Becker
and therefore were entitled to rely upon him as his other clients
were not.
At the outset the Court noted that Becker was on
petitioner’s witness list, but that petitioner’s counsel had
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011