- 36 -
compensation for representing PI in connection with this
transaction.” Not surprisingly, Miller was supportive of SAB
Foam.
Nothing in the record suggests that Miller had any expertise
or knowledge with respect to plastics or plastics recycling, or
that petitioner believed he had any such knowledge or expertise.
There is also no showing that petitioner had any special or
enduring friendship with Miller. While petitioner claims he had
great respect for Miller, his relationship with Miller was
indirect, through Lewin’s tenuous acquaintance with Miller. Any
direct contact with Miller was focused solely on the review of
the memorandum. Given the extent to which Miller was immersed in
the SAB partnerships, how much he stood to benefit financially,
and his lack of expertise regarding plastics materials and
plastics recycling, we do not consider petitioner’s purported
reliance on Miller reasonable or in good faith. “It is
unreasonable for taxpayers to rely on the advice of someone who
they should know has a conflict of interest.” Addington v.
Commissioner, supra at 59. See Vojticek v. Commissioner, supra,
to the effect that advice from such persons “is better classified
as sales promotion.”
Page: Previous 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011