- 41 -
do any work for PI after he left Miller & Summit, and that was 10
years before the years in issue. As noted above, by the time in
issue PI was under new ownership in a new location, and there is
no reason to believe Lewin had any great knowledge about the
company or its business in 1982.
D. Miscellaneous
We dismiss petitioner’s contention that his allegedly
successful 1981 investment in SAB Resource evidenced the
reasonableness of the 1982 investment in SAB Foam. Petitioner
received a royalty payment within 3 months of his investment in
addition to the credits and deductions. Petitioner argues that
this makes the case different from other similar cases and makes
his subsequent investment in SAB Foam reasonable. The modest
royalty was not sufficient to change the character of the deal.
Petitioner’s assertion that the amount invested was
“relatively small” is irrelevant when considering the amount of
tax benefits quickly claimed. The tax benefits and risks of the
transaction were substantial, and they were set forth in the
memorandum for anyone to see. Undoubtedly investors as
sophisticated as petitioner and his partners knew the size of the
potential benefits and risks here or should have known them if
they had been properly careful.
E. Conclusion as to Negligence
Under the circumstances of this case, petitioner failed to
Page: Previous 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011