- 14 -
Willner acquiesced in Hardin's fraudulent activities so long
as they brought him tax benefits and cash distributions exceeding
his contributions. See Mishawaka Properties v. Commissioner, 100
T.C. 353, 367 (1993) (where a partner has voluntarily permitted
another partner's petition and apparent authority to exist, the
"situation * * * should not redound to their own benefit and to
respondent's detriment"). The procedural difficulties of TEFRA
do not require us to reward him for investing in sham entities
that did not file separate partnership returns for the years for
which he claimed fictitious partnership losses.
Willner points out various inconsistent actions taken and
errors made by respondent's revenue agent. Respondent makes
various arguments based on speculation as to what "must have
been" the arrangement between Hardin and various individual
investors. Certain of those investors testified, and respondent
presented documentary evidence concerning the tax treatment of
other investors. We have not discussed in this opinion either
the errors made by the revenue agent or the differences among
other persons who invested in Hardin's Oceanic Leasing scheme.
Nor have we discussed the complex and frequently changing
positions of other investors who have appeared during the
pendency of this proceeding. The only issue before us is whether
Willner had an interest in the entity that is the subject of this
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011