- 46 -
the Projections, or the Investment Memorandum that are
described above. None of the unitholders noted the fact
that the Appraisal fails to set out the residual value of
the computer equipment at the expiration of the master
leases and incorrectly values the equipment using the
"residual value" of the equipment upon the expiration of
the initial user leases. None of the unitholders noted the
discrepancy between the value of the computer equipment
determined in the Appraisal and the value of the equipment
used in the Projections. None of the unitholders noted the
fact that the Tax Opinion relies upon the Appraisal to
establish the fact that the amount paid by the Trust for
the computer equipment was the fair market value of the
equipment despite the obvious errors in the Appraisal.
Even more significant, none of the unitholders noted the
fact that the Tax Opinion relies upon the Appraisal to
establish facts that are not stated in the Appraisal,
such as the residual value of the computer equipment upon
expiration of the master leases and the cash-flow from
the equipment after expiration of the master leases.
We are simply unable to credit much of the testimony
of petitioner and his fellow unitholders regarding their
alleged "independent evaluation" of the subject investment.
We do not believe that petitioner and his fellow
Page: Previous 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011