James D. Barber and Betty L. Barber - Page 25




                                       - 25 -                                         
               The opening paragraph of Thompson’s letter read as follows:            
                    You have retained us to review the Confidential Private           
               Offering Memorandum (“Memorandum”) of Whitman Recycling                
               Associates for the purpose of preparing and advising you               
               with regard to Form 3468 to be filed with your 1982 tax                
               return.  Based upon our review of the Memorandum, we have              
               prepared a Form 3468 as enclosed (with lines 18-27 yet to be           
               completed), showing a full crediting of the amounts shown on           
               your K-1 from the Partnership.  It is our belief that the              
               tax treatment of such items is more likely than not the                
               proper treatment.  However, we do not opine as to any other            
               matters which may or may not be covered in the Memorandum or           
               the opinion of the counsel therein.                                    
               Thompson did not consider his letter to be a rousing                   
          endorsement of the investment; rather, he considered the                    
          investment to be “aggressive”, and his letter was replete with              
          “areas of concern” and various disclaimers.  One area of concern            
          focused on the value of the EPS recyclers:                                  
                    Obviously, the fair market value (“FMV”) of the                   
               Sentinel EPS Recyclers (“Recyclers”) is important                      
               because it is the starting point for determining the                   
               amount of credits available to the Partnership.                        
               Although I am not in a position to judge the FMV of the                
               Recyclers, the valuation made in the Memorandum is                     
               challengeable.  First of all, with regard to Ex. F,                    
               [Burstein’s and Ulanoff’s reports], neither evaluator                  
               appears to be primarily a property appraiser, and                      
               neither engages in an economic analysis of cost of                     
               production of the Recyclers, reasonable profit,                        
               comparables, capitalization of income, or other factors                
               normally used in equipment appraisals.                                 
          Other areas of concern focused on the step-up in purchase price             
          from ECI to F&G, potential conflicts of interest, possible lack             
          of arm’s-length negotiations, F&G’s purported $7 million basis in           
          the recyclers, use of nonrecourse financing, and the circular               
          nature of the transactions.                                                 





Page:  Previous  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011