- 5 -
promoted by Professional and Mr. Chalich. Petitioner, to some
extent, relied on Mr. Pecha's background in chemistry in
considering whether to become involved in Saxon.
Petitioner attended about six meetings or discussions
conducted by Professional prior to investing in Saxon.
Professional advised petitioner that he could be at risk without
signing a note and that his investment in the energy device held
through the Evergreen partnership, would be funded by the refund
of prior years' income taxes generated by the carryback of
investment tax credits. Petitioner was also advised that his
involvement in Evergreen would result in reductions of his
current (1983) and future years' tax liabilities. Petitioner
also understood that he could retain any tax savings generated
through his investment. Petitioner stated that he was interested
in the investment for retirement purposes and that his primary
motivation was not the tax benefits, but his actions belie that
statement.
Petitioner was aware that Evergreen was to lease the energy
device, but after investing and claiming the tax benefits, he
made no effort to inquire whether the energy device had been
leased. Petitioner was aware that, in addition to the initial
lease payment of about $12,700, the partnership and/or partners
were not obligated to make any payments unless the device was
leased to a user. Petitioner believed that his 16.667-percent
interest in Evergreen (which held an interest in the energy
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011