Lowell L. and Marilyn A. Robertson - Page 15




                                       - 15 -                                         
             Investment Memorandum (reproduced as appendix B hereto),                 
             summarized as follows:                                                   

                                 Projections    Projections Projections               
                                 20%           25%          30%                       
             Contingent rent     $914,175     $914,175    $914,175                    
             Residual value      930,671      1,163,338     1,396,006                 
             Total               1,844,846      2,077,513 2,310,181                   

             Second, the minimum residual value of the equipment                      
             determined by petitioners' expert, $8,135, is less than                  
             the residual value determined by respondent's expert,                    
             $10,000.                                                                 
                  In Robertson I, we also found that there was "a                     
             complete lack of business purpose" for the transaction.                  
             In that connection, we noted that petitioners and the                    
             other unitholders "were partners and principals in a                     
             major accounting firm * * * [and] Petitioner, as well as                 
             other unitholders, had extensive experience with leasing                 
             transactions."  Thus, we found that petitioner and the                   
             other unitholders "should have understood that they were                 
             agreeing to a grossly inflated price for their limited                   
             interest in this equipment."                                             
                  As stated above, the issue to be resolved in this                   
             proceeding is whether the expert testimony presented on                  
             petitioners' behalf during the second trial, together with               
             petitioners' arguments, convince us that we were mistaken                





Page:  Previous  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011