- 31 -
thought that because there was no activity going on at the
partnership level, even after being reinstated as TMP, he still
would not have any function. Winer testified at the evidentiary
hearing in December 1996 that he understood "administrative
services" to be "similar to a mailbox or a box drop. I mean,
every time I got correspondence from the Government concerning
audits or whatever, I would pass it on to the investors and also,
they started sending me extensions."
Two months earlier, however, at a deposition on October 17,
1996, in the case of Thompson v. United States, 95-C-1112-B (N.D.
Okla.), Winer testified that it was his understanding after the
Permanent Injunction was modified "that if anything came up from
a tax standpoint, that I was to step in--had been reappointed,
whatever terminology you want to use--and do whatever I had to
do." During the deposition, Winer stated that he believed he
could also perform "ministerial functions", like cooperating with
the investors "if they needed any help in terms of answering
things relating to their taxes based on this investment."
Winer did not notify the investors after the order modifying
the Permanent Injunction was entered by the District Court.
Because of the large number of investors involved and the
consequent expense, Winer was unwilling to incur the burden of
notification if he was not required to do so by the District
Court. Winer felt no obligation to notify all of the investors,
Page: Previous 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011