- 12 -
general partner’s motive and intent in carrying out the business
that determines whether or not the tax shelter had a profit
motive.”
In the context of this case, this is nonsense. In Provizer
we found that the Plastics Recycling scheme was essentially an
economic sham. At the heart of that conclusion was the fact that
the recyclers were grossly overvalued. At no time did we
indicate that the identity of the general partner and his profit
motive had a material effect in resolving the Plastics Recyclying
cases. The issue here is whether the alleged misrepresentation
was material in the context of whether the closing agreement
should stand, and Mr. Kamerman’s professed preoccupation with the
identity of the general partner really does not address that
issue. Regardless who had been the general partner, the fact
remains that the foundations of both partnerships rested on the
same quicksand.
The Closing Agreement
Petitioner argues that, by the terms of the agreement, he is
not bound to the result in Provizer. Petitioner’s argument, as
we understand, focuses on the language in the preamble of the
agreement:
(1) The taxpayer has claimed income, deductions, and/or
credits * * * relating to the * * * [RRA] tax shelter
(hereafter the TAX SHELTER) * * *.
(2) Items of income, deductions, and/or credits
relating to the TAX SHELTER are in issue in a case pending
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011