- 10 -
investigate the underlying facts, assumptions, opinions, or tax
treatment of deductions presented in the offering memoranda.
Petitioner relied solely on his accountant, who recommended to
him the investment in Drake. Petitioner was aware that his
accountant received commissions from Drake based on the number of
investors referred to Drake who purchased partnership units in
Drake.
The evidence does not establish that petitioner made the
full principal and interest payments due in 1982 and 1983, and
petitioner did not make payments on the stated debt obligations
due in 1994 and 1995 relating to his purchase of limited
partnership units in Drake.
Petitioner alleges many material differences between Drake
and Barton. Respondent counters that no material differences
between Drake and Barton have been established and that the
Court’s holding in Krause v. Commissioner, 99 T.C. 132 (1992),
should apply to resolution of the issues before us in this case.
Petitioner has not credibly explained or established, either
at the show cause hearing or in his briefs, why any of the
alleged factual differences between Drake and Barton would be
material. Some of the alleged differences are minute and
pointless. Petitioner ignores the similarities between Drake and
Barton, which are controlling.
As explained, the stated business objective of Drake, per
its offering memorandum, was to acquire producing oil wells and
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