- 29 -
established in what manner they personally relied upon any such
professionals, or even the details of what advice the
professionals provided that would be applicable to petitioners’
situation with respect to the year in issue. Furthermore,
because all of these individuals were affiliated with the Hoyt
organization, it would have been objectively unreasonable for
petitioners to rely upon them in claiming the tax benefits
advertised by that very organization.
We reach a similar conclusion with respect to petitioners’
reliance on Mr. Van Scoten’s father, Edward Van Scoten. While
Mr. Van Scoten trusted Edward Van Scoten because of their
relationship, Edward Van Scoten lacked the expertise necessary to
provide objectively reasonable advice concerning an investment in
a Hoyt partnership. Although he had experience working on dairy
farms, this experience was not directly transferable to a
purportedly vast cattle ranching operation with a complex
financial and ownership structure. Furthermore, Edward Van
Scoten’s information pertaining to the tax benefits of an
investment in the Hoyt organization was derived from the same
source as Mr. Van Scoten’s information--from the promotional
materials and newsletters issued by the Hoyt organization.
Ultimately, petitioners’ reliance on Mr. Van Scoten’s father for
advice concerning the Hoyt partnership investment does not
absolve petitioner from the negligence penalty.
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011