- 41 -
where, as here, the facts reveal that the entire
transaction was set up around the expectation that the
joint implementation of Gordon's investment strategy
would occur. * * * [Id. at 331 n.16.]
Petitioners also attempt to focus our attention on the fact
that only a part of their distributions was used by the Family
Trusts to invest in the limited partnerships. Advancing what is
essentially the same argument as above, petitioners contend that
each trust exercised its separate discretion in deciding whether,
and to what extent, it would participate in Mr. Page's joint
investment scheme. Thus, they would have us treat their distri-
butions separately from the actual joint purchases and would have
us regard the remainder acquisitions as the result of the Family
Trusts' independent investment decisions. While we recognize
that petitioners' distribution amounts did not accord absolutely
with the amounts subsequently invested by the Family Trusts in
the limited partnerships, there was substantial overlapping. In
the case of CGF, $7,977,586 was transferred to the CGF Family
Trusts within 2 months of the trusts' investing $5,928,810 in the
CGF Partnerships. In the case of Lincoln, $5,440,000 in stock
redemptions was distributed to the Lincoln Family Trusts in March
1988, the same month in which those trusts subsequently invested
$3,287,774 in the first four Lincoln Partnerships created. In
October 1988, Lincoln distributed $3,998,678 in dividends to
those Family Trusts, which subsequently invested $3,449,342 in
the last five Lincoln Partnerships formed in early December.
Page: Previous 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011