- 16 -
exact nature of the investment were stipulated, and no witnesses
save for petitioner testified at trial. A fair reading, however,
of the stipulation of facts and the briefs of the parties shows
that they agree that the underlying facts of the partnership
operations are as discussed in Webb v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1990-556.6
In Webb v. Commissioner, supra, we found that the Mid
Continent promotion offered limited partnership interests for
sale by a confidential placement memorandum dated October 26,
1981. The partnership had an individual and a corporate general
partner.
A related entity, Tround International, Inc. (Tround), was a
company principally owned by David Dardick, who was attempting to
develop a high speed oil and gas drill (the Terra-Drill). In
November of 1980, Tround and Mitchell entered into an agreement
granting to Mitchell for 5 years the right to use, lease, and
6For example, the parties have stipulated that in Webb v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1990-556, the Court found that the
activities of Mid Continent had no profit motive in 1981 and 1982
and that underpayments of tax related to partnership deductions,
losses, and credits were attributable to tax-motivated
transactions. In their brief, petitioners request a finding of
fact that in Webb v. Commissioner, supra, the Court found "that
the Partnership was a sham, and in a separate action [docket No.
5757-92] the Court subsequently disallowed all of the items
relating to the Partnership's 1983 and 1984 tax years in a
partnership-level TEFRA proceeding." It would be, in any event,
petitioners' burden to prove the context in which their
deductions and credits were taken. Rule 142(a); Welch v.
Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933); Bixby v. Commissioner, 58
T.C. 757, 791-792 (1972).
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011