- 28 -
only rarely. Given the extent to which Miller was immersed in
the plastics recycling partnerships, how much he stood to benefit
financially, and his lack of expertise regarding plastics
materials and plastics recycling, we do not consider petitioners’
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, 205 F.3d at 59. See Vojticek v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1995-444, to the effect that advice from such persons “is
better classified as sales promotion.”
3. Becker
Petitioner also contends that through his partners, Cohen
and Feinberg, he had a special relationship with Becker and
therefore was entitled to rely upon Becker as the accountant’s
other clients were not. Most of petitioner’s interaction with
Becker was indirect and through his partners.
At the outset the Court noted that Becker was on
petitioner’s witness list, but that petitioners’ counsel had
decided not to call him. The Court questioned counsel in this
matter because of petitioner’s specific reliance on his
relationship with Becker. However, petitioners’ obviously well-
prepared and capable counsel adhered to his decision not to call
upon Becker concerning the supposedly special relationship but,
instead, to rely upon Becker’s extensive testimony in the Jaroff
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011