- 10 -
the residual value of the equipment (for resale or release
purposes) at the end of the wrap lease and user lease. The
purchase agreement contained the identical indemnification
provision as the Hambrose-Charterhouse purchase agreement with
respect to the initial equipment.
The additional equipment wrap lease, with the following
schedule of annual payments, was assigned to the partnership
pursuant to its purchase of the additional equipment:
Year Amount
1984 $ 412,833
1985 1,696,747
1986 1,883,388
1987 2,090,561
1988 2,320,522
1989 2,575,780
1990 2,859,116
1991 3,173,618
1992 2,571,326
The Partnership
Investments in the partnership were offered through a
private offering memorandum (POM),6 which expired at the latest
6 Petitioner objects to the receipt of the POM in evidence
on the ground that it is not an original. Fed. R. Evid. 1003
permits the admission of a duplicate "unless (1) a genuine
question is raised as to the authenticity of the original or (2)
in the circumstances it would be unfair to admit the duplicate in
lieu of the original." Petitioner has not shown either that
there is any question of authenticity, nor that it would be
unfair to admit what petitioner has conceded is a copy of what
decedent received. Fed. R. Evid. 1001(4); Keogh v. Commissioner,
713 F.2d 496, 500 (9th Cir. 1983), affg. Davies v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1981-438. Because we admit the exhibit under Fed. R.
Evid. 1003, we do not address arguments under Fed. R. Evid. 1004.
(continued...)
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