James H. Upchurch - Page 15

                                        - 15 -                                          
               Petitioner characterized himself as a person of modest means             
          at the time of his involvement in the transaction.  He earned                 
          about $28,000 annually from teaching, and his net worth was less              
          than $100,000.  Although petitioner attended several meetings                 
          prior to investing, after the investment and receipt, in cash, of             
          the tax benefits, he did nothing to determine the status of his               
          investment.  Petitioner did not personally observe the energy                 
          device, of which he thought his share of the cost approximated                
          $70,000.3  Additionally, he did not ascertain whether any energy              
          device had actually been leased.  In this regard, it was                      
          petitioner's understanding that lease payments would be made from             
          the lessee's energy savings.                                                  
               As a matter of perspective, we find it difficult to believe              
          that petitioner was expecting the energy device or his                        
          partnership investment to provide an income stream or residual                
          value for retirement or any other purpose.   A reasonable person              
          with a $100,000 net worth and $28,000 salary, who was buying a                
          16-percent interest in an energy device allegedly worth almost $1             
          million, could be expected to have more than a detached interest              
          in seeing the device and/or verifying its value or the eventual               
          outcome of its proposed energy savings.  This is especially so                

               3 Although he testified to a value for his interest of about             
          $70,000, petitioner's claim for a refund reflects that he was                 
          claiming an investment credit based on $165,003 value, which                  
          represents his 16.667-percent interest in Evergreen and the                   
          energy device.  Accordingly, the energy device had a purported                
          cost of $990,000.                                                             




Page:  Previous  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011