Ernest I. Korchak - Page 31

                                       - 31 -                                         
          warnings that PI had no experience in manufacturing or operating            
          the recyclers and Mr. Roberts’s statement that PI had been                  
          running the recyclers for some time.  Although this inconsistency           
          should have alerted petitioner that further investigation was               
          warranted, he did not investigate further.  Petitioner also                 
          failed to show that his efforts to evaluate the economics of the            
          Madison transaction were reasonable or that he relied on                    
          reasonable assumptions.21  An examination of petitioner’s                   
          arguments in relationship to the record in this case demonstrates           
          why.                                                                        
               Although petitioner testified that, in addition to his                 
          reliance on the POM, he made his own more “conservative                     
          estimates” in performing his economic analysis, he provided no              

               21For example, petitioner argued that the “so-called oil               
          crisis” of the late 1970s and early 1980s provided the historical           
          backdrop for his investment in Madison and that his calculations            
          were dependent on his assumption that the price of polystyrene              
          and oil were connected and that the price of oil would rise.  The           
          argument that it was reasonable for a taxpayer to invest in a               
          plastics recycling partnership because of the “so-called oil                
          crisis” and the belief that the price of plastic would increase             
          because it is an oil derivative has been made in more than 20               
          Plastics Recycling cases.  See, e.g., Ferraro v. Commissioner,              
          T.C. Memo. 1999-324; Merino v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-385;           
          Singer v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-325; Sann v.                        
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-259, affd. sub nom. Addington v.              
          Commissioner, 205 F.3d 54 (2d Cir. 2000).  We have found this               
          argument unpersuasive in every one of these cases.  The Court of            
          Appeals for the Third Circuit also has rejected the argument as             
          unpersuasive.  Merino v. Commissioner, 196 F.3d 147 (3d Cir.                
          1999).  Petitioner’s argument is substantially the same as that             
          rejected in the above-cited cases and does not provide a                    
          reasonable basis for petitioner’s analysis or for his investment            
          in Madison.                                                                 





Page:  Previous  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011