Judges: "Dean, John F."
Attorneys: Nicholas P. Ruggiero and Annette M. Ruggiero, pro sese. Timothy S. Sinnott , for respondent.
Filed: Jul. 03, 2001
Latest Update: Nov. 21, 2020
Summary: T.C. Memo. 2001-162 UNITED STATES TAX COURT NICHOLAS P. RUGGIERO AND ANNETTE M. RUGGIERO, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 9561-00. Filed July 3, 2001. Nicholas P. Ruggiero and Annette M. Ruggiero, pro sese. Timothy S. Sinnott, for respondent. MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION DEAN, Special Trial Judge: Respondent determined additions to petitioners' Federal income tax for 1983 under section 6653(a)(1)1 in the amount of $167.25 and under section 6653(a
Summary: T.C. Memo. 2001-162 UNITED STATES TAX COURT NICHOLAS P. RUGGIERO AND ANNETTE M. RUGGIERO, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 9561-00. Filed July 3, 2001. Nicholas P. Ruggiero and Annette M. Ruggiero, pro sese. Timothy S. Sinnott, for respondent. MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION DEAN, Special Trial Judge: Respondent determined additions to petitioners' Federal income tax for 1983 under section 6653(a)(1)1 in the amount of $167.25 and under section 6653(a)..
More
T.C. Memo. 2001-162
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
NICHOLAS P. RUGGIERO AND ANNETTE M. RUGGIERO, Petitioners v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 9561-00. Filed July 3, 2001.
Nicholas P. Ruggiero and Annette M. Ruggiero, pro sese.
Timothy S. Sinnott, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
DEAN, Special Trial Judge: Respondent determined additions
to petitioners' Federal income tax for 1983 under section
6653(a)(1)1 in the amount of $167.25 and under section 6653(a)(2)
in the amount of 50 percent of the interest due on the portion of
1
All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in
effect for the taxable year in issue.
- 2 -
the underpayment of tax attributable to negligence. The
additions to tax are "affected items" in that they were
determined by respondent with reference to a deficiency owing
from petitioners as a result of adjustments to partnership items
appearing on a 1983 partnership return. The issues for decision
are: (1) Whether the statute of limitations prohibits the
assessment of the additions to tax; and if it does not, (2)
whether part of petitioners' underpayment of tax was due to
negligence or intentional disregard of rules or regulations.
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.
The exhibits received into evidence are incorporated herein by
reference. At the time the petition in this case was filed,
petitioners were residing in Lanoka Harbor, New Jersey.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Nicholas Ruggiero (petitioner), a licensed mortgage banker
and realtor, is a high school graduate who attended college for a
year. His college courses included one course in accounting for
one year.
Investment Advice
Sometime in 1983, petitioners went to a Mr. Dan Desmond
(Desmond), an insurance agent, to purchase "some small like life
insurance" for petitioner Annette Ruggiero. Desmond also showed
petitioners some documents indicating that he was a "certified
financial planner". Desmond discussed petitioners' insurance
- 3 -
needs, gave some general financial advice, and then recommended
that petitioners invest in a jojoba research and development
limited partnership. He showed petitioner some pamphlets and
some cosmetic products.
Desmond initially offered petitioners an investment in an
entity called "New Jersey Agri 83-1" (New Jersey Agri), whose
stated intent was to grow jojoba for use as a renewable source of
"oils, pharmaceuticals," and cosmetics. Petitioner does not
remember receiving a private placement memorandum. Desmond did
provide him with certain documents to show him "that this
investment was valid". He was shown copies of "Bills from
Congress, articles of $50 million investment into jojoba, U.S.
Department of Agriculture." After 1983, petitioner received some
newsletters from "people with Ph. D.'s". Petitioner introduced
into evidence copies of the items of "literature" he said were
given to him by Desmond in 1983; all are dated 1984 or later.
From talking with Desmond, petitioner believes that the
actual land for the jojoba cultivation was in Blythe, Arizona.
Although he did not receive any documentation with respect to his
proposed investment in New Jersey Agri, he was told that the
farming, research, and development to make jojoba plants grow
better was going to be done by an entity called "U.S. Agri"
headed by a Mr. Pace. He was advised that he would only be at
risk for his cash investment of $5,500.
- 4 -
Petitioner did not pay a fee to Desmond for his financial
advice. He assumed that, as with the sale of insurance, Desmond
would get a commission from the sale of the jojoba partnership
interest. Petitioner knows nothing about jojoba. Although it
was their first involvement with Desmond, petitioners based their
investment decision solely on what Desmond told them and showed
them.
Preparation of the Tax Return
When petitioners received the partnership Schedule K-1, Form
1065, Partner's Share of Income, Credits, Deductions, etc., for
1983 it was for the partnership Arid Land Research Partners (Arid
Land). The Schedule K-1 indicates that petitioners have a 2.67-
percent profits share interest and that their share of the
partnership loss for the year 1983 is $12,407. Petitioners never
received a Schedule K-1 for an entity named New Jersey Agri.
With reference to their jojoba investment, petitioners gave
their return preparer only the Arid Land Schedule K-1 for
preparation of their 1983 joint Federal income tax return. The
return preparer told petitioners to "file a tax return in
accordance with what is on the K-1". Petitioners deducted a
partnership loss from "Arid Land Research PTNR'S" of $12,407 on
Schedule E, Supplemental Income Schedule, of their 1983 joint tax
return.
- 5 -
Examination of the Arid Land Partnership
Petitioners received Schedules K-1 for the Arid Land
partnership for tax years subsequent to 1983 displaying the tax
identification number (TIN) XX-XXXXXXX. In the years 1991 and
following, petitioners received Schedules K-1 for the "Blythe
Jojoba Plantation, L.P." partnership.
On July 2, 1990, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) sent to
petitioners by certified mail a Notice of Final Partnership
Administrative Adjustment (FPAA) at "2 Paddock CT Lanoka Harbor
NJ 08734-9278". Petitioners lived at 2 Paddock Court, Lanoka
Harbor, New Jersey, from 1988 through the time of trial. The
FPAA states that the IRS has determined adjustments to the
partnership return of Arid Land Research Partners, TIN 33-
0026386.
Upon respondent's motion at trial, we take judicial notice2
that on July 2, 1990, a petition in the name of Arid Land
Research Partners, Robert E. Cole, Tax Matters Partner, was filed
with the Court at docket No. 14600-90. The parties in the Arid
Land case filed on November 1, 1993, a stipulation to be bound by
2
See Fed. R. Evid. 201; United States v. Jackson,
640 F.2d
614, 617 (8th Cir. 1981)(Court may take judicial notice of its
own records of prior litigation closely related to the case
before it); Colonial Penn Ins. Co. v. Coil,
887 F.2d 1236, 1239-
1240 (4th Cir. 1989); St. Louis Baptist Temple, Inc. v. FDIC,
605
F.2d 1169, 1172 (10th Cir. 1979).
- 6 -
the result in the Utah Jojoba I Research case at docket No. 7619-
90. The Court issued an opinion in Utah Jojoba I Research v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-6, on January 5, 1998, holding that
the partnership was not entitled to research and experimental
expense deductions. The Court found that the partnership was not
directly or indirectly engaged in research or experimentation,
was not engaged in a trade or business, and lacked a realistic
prospect of entering a trade or business. On June 4, 1999, the
Court entered a decision in the Arid Land case that upheld
respondent's diallowance of the partnership losses reported by
Arid Land in 1983 and 1984.
On July 3, 2000, respondent sent to petitioners the
statutory notice in this case containing respondent's
determination of their liability for the negligence additions to
tax.
As a result of the decision upholding the adjustments to the
1983 partnership return of Arid Land, petitioners were assessed
on July 24, 2000, additional tax of $3,345. Petitioners paid the
assessment on August 2, 2000.
OPINION
Petitioners argue that they are not subject to the additions
to tax for negligence because: (1) The statute of limitations
prohibits assessment of the additions to tax; and (2) they
- 7 -
reasonably relied on the advice of their financial adviser in
making the investment in Arid Land.
Treatment of Partnership Items
The tax treatment of any partnership item generally is
determined at the partnership level pursuant to the unified audit
and litigation procedures set forth in sections 6221 through
6231. Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA),
Pub. L. 97-248, sec. 402(a), 96 Stat. 648. The TEFRA procedures
apply with respect to all taxable years of a partnership
beginning after September 3, 1982. Sparks v. Commissioner,
87
T.C. 1279, 1284 (1986); Maxwell v. Commissioner,
87 T.C. 783, 789
n.4 (1986). Partnership items include each partner's
proportionate share of the partnership's aggregate items of
income, gain, loss, deduction, or credit. Sec. 6231(a)(3); sec.
301.6231(a)(3)-1(a)(1)(i), Proced. & Admin. Regs.
"Affected items" are defined under section 6231(a)(5) as any
item to the extent such item is affected by a partnership item.
White v. Commissioner,
95 T.C. 209, 211 (1990). Certain affected
items require a partner level determination. N.C.F. Energy
Partners v. Commissioner,
89 T.C. 741, 744 (1987). Section
6230(a)(2)(A)(i) provides that the normal deficiency procedures
apply to those affected items which require partner level
determinations. For the years at issue, the additions to tax for
negligence are affected items requiring factual determinations at
- 8 -
the individual partner level. Id. at 745. The Taxpayer Relief
Act of 1997, Pub. L. 105-34, sec. 1238, 111 Stat. 1026, amended
sections 6221, 6226, and 6230 to provide that the partnership-
level proceeding is now to include the determination of the
applicability of any penalty or addition to tax relating to an
adjustment to a partnership item for partnership tax years ending
after August 5, 1997.
Statute of Limitations
The notice of deficiency relating to the affected items here
was timely issued. Section 6229(d) provides that the mailing of
an FPAA suspends the running of the 3-year limitations period for
assessing a partnership item or affected item for the period
during which an action may be brought for judicial review of an
FPAA (and, if an action is brought, until the decision of the
court has become final) and for 1 year thereafter. A petition
for review of the Arid Land FPAA3 was filed, and the decision was
entered by this Court on June 4, 1999.
Under section 6229(d)(2), the running of the 3-year period
of limitations for assessing a deficiency attributable to a 1983
Arid Land partnership item or affected item was suspended for 1
3
Petitioner testified that he never received a copy of the
FPAA. Respondent introduced evidence that a copy was sent by
certified mail to petitioners' last known address. The validity
of a properly mailed FPAA is not contingent on receipt by a
"notice" partner. Sec. 6223(a); Crowell v. Commissioner,
102
T.C. 683, 692 (1994).
- 9 -
year after the date the decision entered on June 4, 1999, became
final. Since no appeal was filed, the decision became final 90
days after it was entered. Secs. 7481(a)(1), 7483. The
limitations period for 1983 in this case expired in September of
2000. Therefore, respondent's notice of deficiency, mailed to
petitioners on July 3, 2000, was timely.
Additions to Tax for Negligence
Section 6653(a)(1) imposes an addition to tax equal to 5
percent of the underpayment of tax if any part of the
underpayment is attributable to negligence or intentional
disregard of rules or regulations. Section 6653(a)(2) provides
for a further addition to tax equal to 50 percent of the interest
due on the portion of the underpayment attributable to negligence
or intentional disregard of rules or regulations.
Negligence includes "any failure to reasonably attempt to
comply with the tax code, including the lack of due care or the
failure to do what a reasonable or ordinarily prudent person
would do under the circumstances." Chamberlain v. Commissioner,
66 F.3d 729, 732 (5th Cir. 1995), affg. in part and revg. in part
T.C. Memo. 1994-228. Generally, courts look both to the
underlying investment and to the taxpayer's position taken on the
return in evaluating whether a taxpayer was negligent. See Sacks
v. Commissioner,
82 F.3d 918, 920 (9th Cir. 1996), affg. T.C.
Memo. 1994-217.
- 10 -
Under some circumstances, however, a taxpayer may avoid
liability for the additions to tax for negligence under section
6653(a) if reasonable reliance on a competent professional
adviser is shown. Leonhart v. Commissioner,
414 F.2d 749, 750
(4th Cir. 1969), affg. T.C. Memo. 1968-98; Freytag v.
Commissioner,
89 T.C. 849, 888 (1987), affd.
904 F.2d 1011 (5th
Cir. 1990), affd.
501 U.S. 868 (1991). Such reliance is not an
absolute defense to negligence but is merely a factor to be
considered. Freytag v. Commissioner, supra.
For reliance on professional advice to excuse a taxpayer
from the negligence additions to tax, the taxpayer must show that
the professional adviser had the expertise and knowledge of the
pertinent facts to provide informed advice on the subject matter.
Leonhart v. Commissioner, supra; Freytag v. Commissioner, supra;
Stone v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-230; Reimann v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-84.
Reliance on a professional adviser can be inadequate when
the taxpayer and his adviser knew nothing about the nontax
business aspects of the venture. Beck v. Commissioner,
85 T.C.
557 (1985); Flowers v. Commissioner,
80 T.C. 914 (1983). In
order for reliance on professional advice to excuse a taxpayer
from the negligence additions to tax, the reliance must be
reasonable, in good faith, and based upon full disclosure. Zfass
- 11 -
v. Commissioner,
118 F.3d 184, 188 (4th Cir. 1997), affg. T.C.
Memo. 1996-167; Freytag v. Commissioner, supra at 888.
The Court's review of the evidence in this case leads to the
conclusion that petitioners did not place reasonable reliance, in
good faith, on a competent professional adviser in making their
investment in the Arid Land partnership.
According to petitioner's testimony, after a perfunctory
discussion with what he thought was an insurance agent, the agent
recommended that he invest in a jojoba research and
experimentation limited partnership. Petitioner implied that the
switch in investment focus from life insurance to jojoba research
was not remarkable to him, even though this was his first
involvement with Desmond.
Petitioners did not receive, and apparently did not request,
a private placement letter, prospectus, or any other document
describing their investment. Petitioner testified that Desmond
provided a copy of a bill passed by Congress encouraging jojoba
cultivation and some newspaper articles on the subject that
convinced him of the validity of the investment. Petitioner
presented as exhibits items similar to those described in his
testimony, but they all postdate his investment in Arid Land.
Petitioner also seemed relatively unconcerned by being
solicited to invest in an entity called "New Jersey Agri 83-1"
and being placed in one called Arid Land Research Partners.
- 12 -
Petitioners demonstrate little, if any, idea of how their
investment was supposed to work. They knew nothing about jojoba
research.
They did know that their maximum amount at risk was the
$5,500 they paid in cash, and yet they had the potential to
deduct more than twice that amount as a loss on their Federal
income tax return for 1983. They relied, in making their
investment, entirely on whatever they were told by Desmond. They
did not share that information with the Court. They relied on
Desmond even though this was their first contact with him and
they assumed he would receive a commission from, and thus had an
monetary interest in, making the sale.
The Court finds that petitioners failed to reasonably
attempt to comply with the tax code and regulations. Their
actions evidence a lack of due care or the failure to do what a
reasonable or ordinarily prudent person would do under the
circumstances. Chamberlain v. Commissioner, supra.
Petitioners are liable for the additions to tax under
section 6653(a)(1) and (2) for the year 1983.
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered
for respondent.