- 38 -
an interpretation whereby your profits interest was
limited to what the Section 3.4 provision said, i.e.,
25 of any post-‘96 increases, did you agree with that
interpretation?
A That was not how I had understood the document to
be, but he told me that that--it could be interpreted
that way, and that the benefits of using that
interpretation would be because basically that
25 percent would belong to my children, it would be
beneficial.
Q If Lea were still alive, and Mr. Albrecht had told
you that that was his interpretation, what would have
been your response?
A Oh, absolutely not. I mean, that would be
cheating money from Lea.
Q That would be what?
A That would be cheating her of money, of--
Q Cheating her, or cheating you?
A Well, it would be--yeah, I’m sorry, cheating me of
money.
* * * * * * *
Q So why did you go along with Mr. Albrecht’s
interpretation?
A He--well, first of all, Lea was dead, so it was
not an issue between she and I, it was basically an
issue between my children and I, and it would be
beneficial for my children to have that 25 percent, not
me.
The estate contends that Hillgren received “faulty legal
advice” that induced him to take advantage of an ambiguity in the
partnership agreement for a tax benefit. The estate further
contends that the faulty advice created the inconsistency between
the estate tax return and the partnership tax returns. Hillgren,
Page: Previous 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011