Background
A.
Facts
10
Procedural History
11
13
12
II.
Discussion14
14
13
A.
14
15
16
The Tax Court noted that the true net cost of the
CARDS transaction to Crispin was only $72,926, primarily
the structuring fee paid to Chenery and the cost of the
Pullman Opinion. The ordinary loss actually reported by
Murus, by comparison, was $7,641,706.
16
17
Applicability
of
the
Misstatement Penalty
Valuation
18
19
20
21
22
23
2.
24
25
The Tax Court also found that the record does not
reflect that petitioner actually relied on the tax opinion
because [Crispin] received the finalized opinion after the
2001 tax returns for [Crispin] and Murus were filed. (App.
at 33.) Crispin points out that, although the final Pullman
Opinion was dated April 29, 2002 (two weeks after he had
filed his 2001 returns), the stipulated record contains an
April 12, 2002 engagement letter to which a draft opinion
letter had been attached, with the understanding that the final
letter would be backdated to April 12. The Tax Court
concluded that, because no draft of the Pullman Opinion was
in the record, Crispin could not show that the factual
assumptions and analysis in the draft on which Crispin claims
reliance were the same as those in the final Pullman Opinion.
Because we conclude that Crispins reliance on the Pullman
Opinion was neither reasonable nor in good faith, we need not
26
Conclusion
27