- 136 -
The partnerships' history of cash expenditures further
vitiates any notions of their business purposes. The cash
flowing out of the leasing partnerships is not consistent with a
profit-oriented business. The cash did not go directly to the
trucking enterprise; instead it went to Fred's firm, BBPA. BBPA
then split the investor cash with Machise, based upon the "line-
of credit" notes, or, later, upon BBPA's sharing the cash after
taking out its "promoters' fee". Moreover, when the "termination
agreements" were signed, the cash stayed with BBPA or Machise;
none was returned to the partners, with the apparent exception of
Dr. Crescenzo.37 The partners merely received bookkeeping
credits against their notes. Here, as in Fox v. Commissioner, 80
T.C. 972, 1010 (1983), the record is devoid of evidence that the
partners' investment--
was in any way determined with a "true regard for the
profitability of the activity." * * * The negotiations
were conducted only with a view toward benefiting both
the promoters (in cash) and potential * * * partners
(in tax benefits). * * *
There is another characteristic frequently used in
discerning a partnership’s valid profit objectives, as opposed to
its tax avoidance purposes. The courts have considered the
experience of the partnerships’ management in conducting the
37The facts, see supra p. 29, indicate that Dr. Crescenzo's
recovery stemmed from a buyout of his partnership interest--by
Fred and Bruce and Richard Adamucci--that appeared to be part of
a global settlement that took Dr. Crescenzo out of all or most of
his Bryen-promoted tax shelter interests.
Page: Previous 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011