- 253 -
cumulative of other evidence in the record and was not material
to Judge Goffe's holding.
Judge Goffe also concluded that the test case petitioners
failed to prove that the Kersting programs had economic substance
beyond the creation of tax benefits. Relying primarily upon the
manner in which Mr. Kersting actually operated the programs,
Judge Goffe found that there was little if any likelihood of
either corporate profitability or shareholder profitability, that
there was no evidence that Kersting program participants were in
a position to sell their stock at an increased value relative to
the purchase price of the stock, and that Mr. Kersting routinely
disregarded standard corporate practices. Because Judge Goffe
focused on the manner in which Mr. Kersting actually operated the
programs, we are convinced that Mr. Cravens' pro se status was
not material to Judge Goffe's holding that the Kersting programs
lacked economic substance.
Similarly, we are convinced that Mr. Cravens' testimony was
not material to Judge Goffe's holding on this point. Although
Mr. Cravens had terminated his participation in consecutive stock
subscription plans in 1979 and 1980 without any economic benefit,
we note that none of the test case petitioners presented any
evidence that they enjoyed any economic benefit from their
participation in the Kersting programs in dispute. In this
light, we are convinced that Mr. Cravens' testimony was
cumulative of other evidence and was not material to Judge
Goffe's holding that the test case petitioners failed to prove
Page: Previous 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011