Davenport Recycling Associates, Sam Winer, Tax Matters Partner - Page 35

                                       - 35 -                                         
          Davenport's recycling activity for the years 1982 through 1985.             
          On May 2, 1988, copies of the cover letter accompanying the                 
          examination report, and the report itself were mailed to all                
          other partners of Davenport, including participants.  In response           
          to respondent's examination report, Winer's attorney, Hack, filed           
          a protest with the IRS on behalf of Winer in which Winer argued             
          that Davenport was a for-profit venture and that the recyclers              
          were not grossly overvalued.  Winer did not allege that he was              
          not the TMP or that he had been enjoined from serving as TMP.               
          I.  The Plastics Recycling Project Settlement Offer                         
               After the protest was filed, the Davenport Recycling case              
          was assigned to IRS Appeals Officer Nelson Leduc (Leduc).  In an            
          October 21, 1988, letter from Leduc to Winer, respondent made the           
          Plastics Recycling Project Settlement Offer to Davenport and the            
          other TEFRA partnerships of which Winer was general partner.  The           
          settlement offer was mailed to Winer as TMP of Davenport at                 
          Davenport's business address and at Winer's home address.  Leduc            
          sent blank copies of the offer letter to Winer for his                      
          convenience, so that Winer could forward to each notice partner             
          the details of the Government's offer.  The terms of the                    
          settlement offer were as follows:  (1) The investor would be                
          allowed a deduction for 50 percent of his cash invested in the              
          year of investment; (2) no business or energy tax credits would             
          be allowed; (3) the investor would concede the overvaluation                
          penalty under section 6659 at the 30-percent rate; (4) the                  




Page:  Previous  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011