1997 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 621">*621 Decisions will be entered under Rule 155.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
DINAN, SPECIAL TRIAL JUDGE: These consolidated cases were heard pursuant to the provisions of section 7443A(b)(3) and Rules 180, 181, and 182. 1997 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 621">*623 1
Respondent determined additions to petitioners' Federal income taxes for the years as indicated:
CATHERINE CHIMBLO AND ESTATE OF GUS CHIMBLO, DECEASED, CATHERINE CHIMBLO, EXECUTRIX, DOCKET NO. 16546-96
Year | Sec. 6653(a)(1) | Sec. 6653(a)(2) | Sec. 6661 |
1980 | $ 479 | * | -- |
1982 | 60 | * | __ |
1983 | 619 | * | $ 3,097 |
1984 | 629 | * | 3,144 |
* 50% of the interest due on the deficiency. |
JOSEPHINE CHIMBLO AND ESTATE OF ANTHONY J. CHIMBLO, DECEASED, ROSALIE MONAHAN, EXECUTRIX, DOCKET NO. 16804-96
Year | Sec. 6653(a)(1) | Sec. 6653(a)(2) |
1980 | $ 595 | * |
1981 | $ 334 | * |
* 50% of the interest due on the | ||
deficiency. |
The issues for decision are: (1) Whether respondent properly notified petitioners of1997 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 621">*624 the underlying partnership proceeding which led to the deficiencies upon which the additions to tax in these cases are based; (2) whether petitioners are liable for the
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. The stipulations of fact and attached exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference. Petitioner Catherine Chimblo resided in Stanford, Connecticut, and petitioner Josephine Chimblo resided in Cos Cob, Connecticut, on the dates their respective petitions were filed in these cases.
Petitioner Catherine Chimblo (Catherine) was married to Gus Chimblo (Gus) until his death on March 22, 1988. Petitioner Josephine Chimblo (Josephine) was married to Anthony J. Chimblo (Anthony) until his death on March 21, 1984.
In December of 1983, Gus and his sister-in-law Josephine each invested $25,000 in Barrister Equipment Associates Series 151 (the Barrister partnership). Their respective schedules K-1 from the Barrister partnership1997 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 621">*625 show their capital contributed during 1983 as such amounts. The investments were made on the advice of the Chimblos' family accountant, John Santella. Mr. Santella died in 1996, prior to the trial in this case. After his death, Mr. Santella's son, John Santella Jr., acted as the Chimblos' accountant.
On its 1983 and 1984 returns, the Barrister partnership claimed ordinary losses in the amounts of $848,599 and $1,059,623, respectively, and qualified investment credit property in the amounts of $18,809,500 and $6,110,000, respectively. The Barrister partnership attached disclosure statements to its 1983 and 1984 returns which state that its sole business was "the printing and sale of 49 different literary works and microcomputer disks aimed at a general public market, using leased films, plates and disks to produce said products."
On their 1983 return, Catherine and Gus claimed an ordinary loss in the amount of $10,477 and an investment tax credit in the amount of $18,578 with respect to their $25,000 investment. Since the alternative minimum tax nullified the benefit of part of the investment tax credit for 1983, Catherine and Gus filed amended returns1997 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 621">*626 for 1980 and 1982 to carry back portions of the 1983 credit to offset their previously reported tax liability for the 1980 and 1982 taxable years. 2 They also claimed an ordinary loss in the amount of $13,083 and an investment tax credit in the amount of $6,035 for their 1984 taxable year with respect to their investment in the Barrister partnership.
On their 1983 return, Josephine and Anthony claimed an ordinary loss in the amount of $10,477 and an investment tax credit in the amount of $18,578 with respect to their $25,000 investment. Since the alternative minimum tax nullified the entire benefit of the investment tax credit for 1983, Josephine and Anthony filed amended returns for 1980 and 1981 to carry back portions1997 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 621">*627 of the 1983 credit to offset their previously reported tax liability for the 1980 and 1981 taxable years.
Pursuant to the agreement of the parties in the underlying partnership proceeding, this Court entered a stipulated decision on February 17, 1995, which decided that the none of the losses claimed by Barrister partnership for 1983 and 1984 were allowed and the amounts of its qualified investment credit property for 1983 and 1984 were zero. 3 Respondent thereafter made computational adjustments disallowing the losses and investment tax credits claimed by petitioners with respect to the Barrister partnership.
The first issue for decision is whether respondent properly notified petitioners of the Barrister partnership proceeding for its 1983 and 1984 taxable years. We have jurisdiction in these cases to decide whether respondent complied with the notice requirements of
At trial, Josephine did not recall receiving an FPAA with respect to the Barrister partnership proceeding. Catherine did not testify as to whether or not she received one. However, the validity of a properly mailed FPAA is not contingent upon actual receipt by the partner of the FPAA.
Respondent submitted certified records that show that FPAAs for the Barrister partnership for 1983 and 1984 were mailed to petitioners on September 5, 1989. We are convinced by evidence introduced by respondent that the FPAAs were properly mailed in these cases, and we so find. We find Josephine's and Catherine's self- serving testimony on this matter to be vague and insufficient to overcome respondent's evidence.
Having found that petitioners were properly notified of the partnership proceeding, we lack jurisdiction to redetermine the deficiencies on which the additions to tax in these cases are based.
The second issue for decision is whether petitioners are liable for the
Negligence under
Before dealing with the question of whether petitioners were negligent in these cases, we must address the question of whether respondent properly asserted the
The version of
The pre-ERTA
We now turn to the question of whether petitioners' underpayments for the taxable years in issue were due to negligence or intentional disregard of rules and regulations. Petitioners contend that they did not act negligently because they relied on the advice of Mr. Santella. Under some circumstances, a taxpayer may avoid liability for negligence if reasonable reliance on a competent professional adviser is shown.
Based on the record, we find that petitioners have not proved that their reliance on Mr. Santella was reasonable under the circumstances. There is no evidence in the record that Mr. Santella was qualified to render a professional opinion to Josephine and/or Gus as to the business merits and tax consequences of the Barrister partnership investments.
Petitioners did not establish that Mr. Santella had any expertise in the publishing industry which he advised petitioners to invest in for alleged business reasons. 4 Although Josephine and Catherine each testified that the motivation for their investments was enhanced income flow, neither of them ever voiced any concern to Mr. Santella over the absence of any income and eventual complete loss of their $25,000 investments. We find that petitioners' investment of $25,000 in an industry that neither they nor their adviser knew anything about without even a cursory review of the offering materials was negligent.
1997 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 621">*634 We are also not convinced that Mr. Santella's advice regarding the tax consequences of the investment was competent. In their petitions to this Court, petitioners state that Mr. Santella mentioned tax benefits which might be obtained from the investment, for which he had an opinion from legal counsel. However, the tax opinion that Mr. Santella purportedly relied upon is not in the record for our consideration. No testimony was offered by petitioners from any individual, including Mr. Santella's son, the successor to the Chimblo accounts, to establish Mr. Santella's competence to render advice with respect to the tax consequences of petitioners' investments.
We conclude that petitioners were negligent because their reliance on Mr. Santella was not reasonable under the circumstances. They did not prove that he was competent to render advice concerning the business merits or tax consequences of the investments, or that he reasonably relied upon competent professional advice in rendering his own advice. Accordingly, we hold that petitioners are liable for the
1997 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 621">*635 The third issue for decision is whether petitioners are liable for the
In general,
Petitioners1997 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 621">*637 do not argue that substantial authority exists for their tax treatment of the items in issue or that they adequately disclosed the relevant facts with respect to the Barrister partnership investment. Rather, they contend that respondent should have waived the additions to tax pursuant to
There is no evidence in the record that petitioners requested respondent to waive the
Even if we were to assume that such a request was made and that the evidence in this record was1997 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 621">*639 available to respondent, see
We hold that petitioners are liable for the
To reflect the foregoing,
Decisions will be entered under Rule 155.
1. Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the taxable years in issue. All Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.↩
2. The parties stipulated that the amounts of the investment tax credit carrybacks for 1980 and 1982 are $9,571 and $1,190, respectively, which differ from the amounts claimed on the 1980 and 1982 amended returns ($4,577 and $6,184). Since we have found no explanation in the record for these differences, and the parties have not made any reservations to their stipulations, we accept the amounts stipulated as correct.↩
3. Anderson Equipment Associates, et al., Barrister Associates, Tax Matters Partner v. Commissioner, docket No. 2745-89.↩
4. Josephine and Catherine also admit to having no personal knowledge of the publishing industry.↩
5. Although the stipulated decision in Anderson Equipment Associates, et al., Barrister Associates, Tax Matters Partner v. Commissioner, docket No. 27745-89, see supra note 3 and related text, does not explain the basis of the decision, we have previously found that the Barrister Equipment Associates Series 162 partnership, the partnership involved in the stipulated decision, lacked economic substance and was a sham.