Madison Recycling Associates, et al. - Page 7




                                        - 7 -                                         
          investigation, the tax matters partners became cooperating                  
          Government witnesses in the investigation of the promoter, a                
          convicted tax felon.  In exchange for their cooperation, the tax            
          matters partners were granted immunity from prosecution or                  
          offered suspended sentences.  While the criminal investigation              
          was proceeding, the IRS pursued a civil examination of the                  
          Transpac partnerships.  Because the statute of limitations                  
          applicable to the civil examination was about to expire, the IRS            
          solicited consents from the limited partners but most refused.              
          The IRS then approached the tax matters partners--who at this               
          point were targets of the ongoing criminal investigation--and               
          solicited and received consents from them on behalf of the                  
          Transpac partnerships.  See id. at 223.                                     
               In Transpac Drilling Venture 1982-12, the Court of Appeals             
          for the Second Circuit found that the tax matters partners who              
          signed the consents had “a powerful incentive to ingratiate                 
          themselves to the government” since their grants of immunity or             
          sentencing agreements depended upon their cooperation with the              
          Government.  Id. at 227.  The Court of Appeals further found that           
          “the criminal investigation created an overwhelming pressure on             
          the TMPs to ignore their fiduciary duties to the limited                    
          partners” and determined that if “serious conflicts exist, a TMP            
          may be barred from acting on behalf of the partnership”.  Id.               








Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011