- 38 -
Mr. Abelein never deceived petitioner about their finances
or partnership investments or concealed financial or partnership
information from her. With respect to the Hoyt partnership
investments, Mr. Abelein encouraged petitioner to attend
partnership meetings, to call the Hoyt organization, and to pay
the Hoyt partnership bills.
Petitioner also had the opportunity to review the
promotional materials they received, but she chose not to do so.
See Morello v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-181 (“We have
consistently applied the principle that the provisions providing
relief from joint and several liability are ‘designed to protect
the innocent, not the intentionally ignorant.’”) (quoting Dickey
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1985-478). Those promotional
materials warned potential investors that the promised tax
savings may be disallowed by the IRS and that potential investors
should consult independent tax advisers before making an
investment in the partnership. Neither petitioner nor Mr.
Abelein hired a competent professional to verify critical factual
representations made by the Hoyt organization. Moreover,
petitioner was aware of the large partnership deductions being
claimed on the tax returns, for not only was she able to identify
the Hoyt-related items on their returns, but, in later years, she
even questioned Mr. Abelein about the legitimacy of their
deductions and their ability to “go back on” their taxes. We
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