DocketNumber: No. 13656-06
Citation Numbers: 2008 T.C. Memo. 232, 96 T.C.M. 241, 2008 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 230
Judges: \"Wherry, Robert A., Jr.\"
Filed Date: 10/20/2008
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
R determined that Ps are liable for additions to tax pursuant to
Andrew R. Moore, Catherine Caballero, and Nhi T. Luu for respondent.
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
WHERRY, Judge: This case is before the Court on a petition for redetermination of three affected items notices of deficiency in which respondent determined that petitioners are liable for the following additions to tax:
*2*Additions to Tax | |||
Year | |||
1983 | $ 550.00 | n.1 | $ 2,750 |
1984 | 9.35 | n.1 | --- |
1985 | 15.15 | n.1 | --- |
*4*n.1 50 percent of the interest due on deficiencies of | |||
*4* $ 11,000, $ 187, and $ 303 for the 1983, 1984, and 1985 | |||
*4*tax years, respectively. |
Unless otherwise indicated, section references are to the Internal Revenue Code, as amended and in effect for the tax years at issue. The issues for decision are whether petitioners are liable for each of the additions to tax determined by respondent.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Some of the facts have *231 been stipulated, and the stipulated facts and accompanying exhibits are hereby incorporated by reference into our findings. At the time they filed their petition, petitioners resided in California.
Mr. Heller has a degree in business from UCLA. Following college and the military, he worked as a stockbroker for Merrill Lynch. He later worked in sales and marketing in the technology sector for various corporations, including Control Data Corporation, Cisco Systems, Inc., and Oracle Corporation.
Sometime in the early 1980s George Bell (Mr. Bell), described at trial by Mr. Heller as a "salesperson" and "chartered financial analyst", 1 advised Mr. Heller to invest in a limited partnership called Contra Costa Jojoba Research Partners (CCJRP), which was involved in research about and the growing of jojoba beans. Before investing in CCJRP, Mr. Heller received a prospectus relating to CCJRP. According to Mr. Heller, the prospectus contained caveats as to the risks and tax benefits associated with an investment in CCJRP. Mr. Heller provided the prospectus to his certified public accountant (C.P.A.), William M. Miller (Mr. Miller), who informed Mr. Heller that CCJRP "looked *232 like a pretty good investment" and that the tax writeoff associated with an investment in CCJRP was "limited * * * compared to others." In addition, Mr. Heller conducted his own independent research.
On November 30, 1983, petitioners acquired 10 units in CCJRP for $ 27,500, or $ 2,750 per unit. They paid $ 11,000 upon closing and signed a promissory note for the remaining $ 16,500.
In 1983, 1984, and 1985, the tax years at issue, CCJRP filed with the Internal Revenue Service and provided to petitioners Schedules K-1, Partner's Share of Income, Credits, Deductions, etc., in which CCJRP allocated to petitioners ordinary losses of $ 25,000, $ 490, and $ 2,582, respectively. In turn, on their 1983, and presumably also their 1984, and 1985 joint Forms 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, petitioners claimed ordinary losses relating to their interest in CCJRP of $ 25,000, $ 490, and $ 2,582, respectively as deductions in computing their taxable income for those years. Petitioners' 1983 joint Federal income tax return was prepared *233 by Mr. Miller. It appears that Mr. Miller also prepared their 1984 and 1985 joint returns.
On May 30, 1989, respondent sent petitioners a notice of final partnership administrative adjustment (FPAA) issued to CCJRP for the 1983 tax year. FPAAs issued to CCJRP for the 1984 and 1985 tax years were mailed to CCJRP's Tax Matters Partner, Paul E. Vallely, on April 12, 1989. On July 13, 1989, a petition in the name of CCJRP, Charles B. Toepfer, Tax Matters Partner, was filed with the Court at docket No. 17323-89. On January 28, 1994, to settle the case at docket No. 17323-89, the tax matters partner and respondent filed a stipulation to accept and be bound by the result in
The Court issued an opinion in Utah Jojoba I on January 5, 1998, in which it held that the partnership at issue was not entitled to deduct its losses for research and development expenditures. See
On June 19, 2006, respondent issued the aforementioned affected items notice of deficiency with respect to petitioners' 1983 tax year. On June 26, 2006, respondent issued petitioners the aforementioned affected items notices of deficiency for their 1984 and 1985 tax years. Petitioners then filed a timely petition with this Court. A trial was held on May 17, 2007, in San Francisco, California.
OPINION
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, to which an appeal lies in this case absent a stipulation to the contrary, has held that a determination as to negligence for purposes of
Petitioners contend that they were not negligent because they invested in CCJRP only after receiving the independent opinion of their C.P.A., to whom they had provided the documents supplied to them by CCJRP. Petitioners further contend that Mr. Heller, who had investment expertise, did his own thorough research before investing in CCJRP.
Respondent counters that petitioners failed to act reasonably because, before investing in CCJRP, they did not *236 seek independent advice as to the agricultural viability of jojoba farming in the southwestern United States. Although respondent concedes that petitioners sought the advice of their C.P.A., Mr. Miller, respondent asserts that Mr. Miller was provided a "limited collection of information" and "reviewed it cursorily and orally represented to [p]etitioners little more than a comparison to contemporary oil and gas tax shelter projects." Moreover, Mr. Miller "did not have any expertise in either farming or complex taxation matters" and "was not qualified to give the requisite advice." Respondent notes that, despite the tax risks boldly identified in CCJRP's prospectus, "Petitioners negligently failed to have the document reviewed by an independent tax attorney."
Concerning petitioners' deduction of losses stemming from their investment in CCJRP, respondent points out that petitioners claimed a $ 25,000 loss on their 1983 Federal income tax return after acquiring ten units in CCJRP on November 30, 1983, for $ 11,000 in cash and promissory notes for the remaining $ 16,500. Respondent argues that "Considering the significance of the loss claimed, it would have been reasonable and prudent for *237 petitioners to seek advice from an attorney trained in taxation" before claiming those losses on their 1983, 1984, and 1985 Federal income tax returns.
As explained below, although reasonable reliance on professional advice may serve as a defense to the additions to tax for negligence, see
CCJRP's underlying activity lacked legitimacy, as we decided in Utah Jojoba I. See First, the principal flaw in the structure of Blythe II was evident from the face of the very documents included in the offering. A reading of the R & D agreement and licensing agreement, both of which were included as part of the offering, plainly shows that the licensing agreement canceled or rendered ineffective the R & D agreement because of the concurrent execution of the two documents. Thus, the partnership was never engaged, either directly or indirectly, in the conduct of any research or experimentation. Rather, the partnership was merely passive investor seeking royalty returns pursuant to the licensing agreement. Any experienced attorney capable of reading and understanding the subject documents *239 should have understood the legal ramifications of the licensing agreement canceling out the R & D agreement. However, petitioners never consulted an attorney in connection with this investment, nor does it appear that they carefully scrutinized the offering themselves.
Although we do not doubt that petitioners sought some professional advice and that Mr. Heller conducted some of his own research before investing in CCJRP, this case resembles other jojoba cases in which the Court has sustained the imposition of an addition to tax under
For example,
As was the case in
said, well, from his professional opinion, it looked like a pretty good investment, it looked like the economics were there, the demand for the product was there, and I remember him saying to the effect, as a limited writeoff in this program compared to others so it looked like a very conservative program to go into. *241 And he would recommend that I go into that program itself.
Mr. Heller's vague testimony concerning Mr. Miller's advice is insufficient to support petitioners' reasonable-reliance argument. This is a highly factual inquiry, and the dearth of evidence in the record leads us to conclude that petitioners' arguments are unpersuasive. See
The fact that Mr. Heller conducted his own research before investing in CCJRP does not alter our opinion. At trial, he testified that he invested in CCJRP because he learned of jojoba's many uses and because he believed that there was great demand for jojoba. However, he was also aware that there was some tax *242 benefit associated with his investment. This is no different than the aforementioned cases in which the Court found that the taxpayers "acted on their enthusiasm for the potential uses of jojoba and acted with knowledge of the tax benefits of making the investment."
Nor does the fact that Mr. Miller prepared petitioners' 1983, 1984, and 1985 joint Federal income tax returns shield them from liability for the
In a very short section of their brief, petitioners state without supporting argument that they are not liable for the
Petitioners do not argue that they had substantial authority for claiming the loss on their 1983 Federal income tax return, and they have not demonstrated that they adequately disclosed the facts relevant to their investment in CCJRP on their 1983 tax return or on an attached statement.
On brief, citing
The anti-stacking provision referred to by petitioners pertains to accuracy-related penalties imposed under
The Court has considered all of petitioners' contentions, arguments, requests, and statements. To the extent not discussed herein, we conclude that they are meritless, moot, or irrelevant.
To reflect the foregoing,
1. At trial, Mr. Heller also described Mr. Bell as a salesperson who he believed had received a commission on the purchase by petitioners of their interest in CCJRP.↩
2. Those additions to tax are for (1) an amount equal to 5 percent of the underpayment and (2) an amount equal to 50 percent of the interest payable under
3. The Christensens' C.P.A. was deceased. It is unknown why Mr. Miller did not testify at trial.↩
4. A guiding principle is that similarly situated taxpayers should be treated similarly. See
5. Although petitioners also signed a promissory note for $ 16,500, there is no evidence in the record as to whether they ever made payments on that note.↩
6. We note that this case is distinguishable from
7. In 1983,
8. Where the understatement at issue is attributable to a tax shelter, adequate disclosure is inconsequential; and, in addition to substantial authority, the taxpayer must demonstrate a reasonable belief that the tax treatment claimed was more likely than not proper.
9. The anti-stacking rule is actually contained in
Carlos and Jacqueline Marcello v. Commissioner of Internal ... , 380 F.2d 499 ( 1967 )
Zachary H. Sacks and Salley Sacks v. Commissioner of ... , 82 F.3d 918 ( 1996 )
United States v. Boyle , 105 S. Ct. 687 ( 1985 )
Anthony C. And Mildred M. Licari v. Commissioner of ... , 946 F.2d 690 ( 1991 )
Sharon D. Kantor, Robert E. Kantor v. Commissioner of ... , 998 F.2d 1514 ( 1993 )