- 12 - general partner’s motive and intent in carrying out the business that determines whether or not the tax shelter had a profit motive.” In the context of this case, this is nonsense. In Provizer we found that the Plastics Recycling scheme was essentially an economic sham. At the heart of that conclusion was the fact that the recyclers were grossly overvalued. At no time did we indicate that the identity of the general partner and his profit motive had a material effect in resolving the Plastics Recyclying cases. The issue here is whether the alleged misrepresentation was material in the context of whether the closing agreement should stand, and Mr. Kamerman’s professed preoccupation with the identity of the general partner really does not address that issue. Regardless who had been the general partner, the fact remains that the foundations of both partnerships rested on the same quicksand. The Closing Agreement Petitioner argues that, by the terms of the agreement, he is not bound to the result in Provizer. Petitioner’s argument, as we understand, focuses on the language in the preamble of the agreement: (1) The taxpayer has claimed income, deductions, and/or credits * * * relating to the * * * [RRA] tax shelter (hereafter the TAX SHELTER) * * *. (2) Items of income, deductions, and/or credits relating to the TAX SHELTER are in issue in a case pendingPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011