- 39 -
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 petitioner’s
claims that he had a unique and special relationship with his
advisers Miller and Becker. 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 contends that he “kept in touch” with
Miller over the 10 years after he left Miller & Summit. At
trial, however, Miller testified that after petitioner left the
firm, they “rarely” kept in touch. On this matter, we consider
Miller a more reliable witness than petitioner. Miller’s
testimony clearly shows that he had no special and close
relationship with petitioner during the years in issue.
Petitioner asserts that he also had an especially close
relationship with PI. Petitioner testified, however, that he did
not do any work for PI after he left Miller & Summit, and that
Page: Previous 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011