- 9 -
some point before the years in issue, Jay Hoyt decided that when
the Hoyt family sold breeding cattle to a cattle-breeding
partnership, he should not be negotiating as general partner of
that cattle-breeding partnership its purchase of those same
cattle and then managing that partnership’s cattle under a
sharecrop agreement between the partnership and W.J. Hoyt & Sons.
However, despite these different entities the Hoyt family
employed, Jay Hoyt continued to head the Hoyt organization and
was ultimately in charge of all of the Hoyt organization’s
operations. All of the individuals managing various entities in
5(...continued)
among other things, determined with respect to the transactions
of several earlier cattle partnerships (which the Hoyt family
organized and operated, including DF #1) that (1) those
partnerships had acquired the benefits and burdens of ownership
with respect to specific breeding cattle and (2) the promissory
notes they issued were valid recourse indebtedness. In addition,
Jay Hoyt (as tax matters partner) and respondent later concluded
settlements with respect to the years 1980 through 1986 of those
partnerships and a number of other cattle-breeding partnerships
the Hoyt family organized (including settlements for 1980 through
1986 for some of the seven cattle-breeding partnerships involved
in the instant cases). In the instant cases, which involve the
years 1987 through 1992 and concern transactions the seven
cattle-breeding partnerships in issue entered into after those in
Bales, however, the parties disagree whether these seven cattle-
breeding partnerships obtained actual ownership of specific
breeding cattle and whether the promissory notes the partnerships
issued were valid indebtedness. The terms “sale”, “sold”,
“purchase”, “partnership’s cattle”, and similar terms, insofar as
relating to subsequent transactions now in issue, are used herein
for convenience and are not intended as ultimate findings or
conclusions concerning the partnerships’ acquisition of cattle.
Similarly, the use herein of such terms indicating that interest
or principal payments were due should not be construed as our
conveying any legal conclusion concerning the validity of the
partnerships’ promissory notes.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011