River City Ranches #4 - Page 134



                                       - 72 -                                         
          H.  Conclusions34                                                           
               Both the RCR #4 and RCR #6 bills of sale listed large                  
          numbers of breeding sheep which did not actually exist.  In                 
          addition, the RCR #4 bill of sale was not a contemporaneous                 
          document.  Each partnership's stated purchase price for its                 
          breeding sheep further did not reasonably approximate the sheep's           
          fair market value.  Lastly, the alleged recourse promissory note            
          each partnership issued was not a valid recourse indebtedness.              
          Accordingly, we hold that RCR #4 and RCR #6 did not acquire the             
          benefits and burdens of ownership with respect to the breeding              
          sheep they each had purportedly acquired from Barnes Ranches.               
          See Ferrell v. Commissioner, supra at 1186-1190; Grodt & Mckay              
          Realty, Inc. v. Commissioner, 77 T.C. 1221, 1237-1238 (1981).  We           
          further hold that RCR #4 and RCR #6 are not entitled to the                 




               34On brief, petitioners assert that this Court's prior                 
          decision in Bales v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1989-568,                     
          collaterally estops respondent from relitigating a number of                
          issues concerning the transactions in the instant cases.                    
          However, petitioners failed to raise collateral estoppel as a               
          defense in their pleadings.  The Court thus does not consider               
          petitioners' collateral estoppel argument to be properly before             
          it.  In any event, collateral estoppel would not apply in the               
          instant cases.  The Bales decision involved several cattle                  
          breeding limited partnerships organized by Mr. Hoyt's family that           
          had entered into transactions to acquire breeding cattle.  The              
          instant cases, in contrast, involve other sheep breeding limited            
          partnerships that entered into transactions purportedly to                  
          acquire breeding sheep from either Barnes Ranches or W.J. Hoyt              
          Sons Ranches MLP.  The issues in the instant cases can hardly be            
          said to be identical to those decided in Bales, as different                
          partnerships and different transactions are presented.  See Peck            
          v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 162, 166-167 (1988), affd. 904 F.2d 525            
          (9th Cir. 1990); see also Coward v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.                
          1997-198.                                                                   



Page:  Previous  62  63  64  65  66  67  68  69  70  71  72  73  74  75  76  77  78  79  80  81  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011