I have a scenario in which a tax attorney (B) has been given a job to structure shares by A, however he structures the shares incorrectly and the shares that A wanted structured for C end up being vulnerable to a large amount of tax.
C then tries to claim that A owes them a duty of care but a judge rules that A does not because:
1) A only told B the number of people she wanted the shares structured for and not their names;
2) C did not actually rely on any tax advice given by B;
3) B's tax advice did not actually make C's position an worse but just deprived C of extra income.
I have to appeal each of these three points and am finding it extremely difficult... any ideas?
...Should I go back to school?