- 36 -
require that the party being estopped prevailed in the prior
proceeding with regard to the ultimate matter in dispute, but
rather only that a particular position or argument asserted by
the party in the prior proceeding was accepted by the court. Id.
Respondent’s position in this case is in no manner
contradictory to the position taken by the United States in the
criminal conviction of Mr. Hoyt. See, e.g., Goldman v.
Commissioner, 39 F.3d at 408 (taxpayer-appellants’ argument that
an investment partnership “constituted a fraud on the IRS, as
found by a civil jury * * * and by the tax court * * * cannot
justify appellants’ own failure to exercise reasonable care in
claiming the losses derived from their investment”). To the
contrary, this Court has sustained a finding of negligence with
respect to investors who had been victims of deception by tax
shelter promoters. For example, in Klieger v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1992-734, this Court held that taxpayers in a situation
similar to that of petitioner were negligent. In Klieger, we
addressed taxpayers’ involvement in certain investments that were
sham transactions that lacked economic substance:
Petitioners are taxpayers of modest means who were
euchred by Graham, a typical shifty promoter. Graham sold
petitioners worthless investments by giving spurious tax
advice that induced them to reduce their withholding and
turn their excess pay over to Graham as initial payments to
acquire interests in “investment programs” that did not
produce any economic return and apparently never had any
prospects of doing so. Graham purported to fulfill his
prophecies about the tax treatment of the Programs by
preparing petitioners’ tax returns and claiming deductions
Page: Previous 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011