- 28 -
reasonable, the advice generally must be from competent and
independent parties unburdened with an inherent conflict of
interest, not from the promoters of the investment. Goldman v.
Commissioner, 39 F.3d 402, 408 (2d Cir. 1994), affg. T.C. Memo.
1993-480; LaVerne v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. 637, 652 (1990), affd.
without published opinion sub nom. Cowles v. Commissioner, 949
F.2d 401 (10th Cir. 1991), affd. without published opinion 956
F.2d 274 (9th Cir. 1992); Rybak v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 524, 565
(1988); Edwards v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-169.
It is clear in this case that the advice petitioner
received, if any, concerning the items resulting in the
deficiencies was not objectively reasonable. First, we note that
petitioner has not established that she received any advice at
all concerning the deduction and credits. Although petitioner
relied on Mr. Hoyt to prepare the return and the tentative refund
form, petitioner’s testimony and the other evidence in the record
does not suggest that she directly questioned Mr. Hoyt about the
nature of the tax claims. Petitioner testified only that she
asked Mr. Hoyt about the general legality of the investment and
tax benefits at the time of the sales meeting. When petitioner
signed the return and form, she did not question or seek advice
concerning the large deduction and credits appearing on them.
Nevertheless, assuming arguendo that petitioner did receive
advice from Mr. Hoyt, any such advice that she received is in no
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