- 21 -
compensation and reimbursement paid to the general partner reduce
the income available to limited partners or assignees.” His
statement is inapplicable because the general partner received no
compensation and incurred no expenses.
We have rejected expert opinion based on conclusions which
are unexplained or contrary to the evidence. See Rose v.
Commissioner, supra; Compaq Computer Corp. v. Commissioner,
supra. An expert fails to assist the trier of fact if he or she
assumes the position of advocate. See Estate of Halas v.
Commissioner, 94 T.C. 570, 577 (1990); Laureys v. Commissioner,
92 T.C. 101, 122-129 (1989). Conklin’s erroneous factual
assumptions cast doubt on his objectivity.
4. Conclusion
The parties stipulated that the net asset value of the
partnership was $2,081,323 on December 28, 1994. Each petitioner
gave each trust a 22.3-percent interest in the partnership; 44.6
percent of $2,081,323 is $928,270.
10(...continued)
disability; (d) avoid cumbersome and expensive guardianships; (e)
avoid or minimize probate delay and expenses; (f) minimize
franchise tax liability; (g) provide business flexibility because
the agreement can be amended; (h) eliminate ancillary probate
proceedings; (i) provide a convenient mechanism for making annual
gifts; (j) provide a vehicle to educate descendants about family
assets to increase their value; (k) provide a mechanism to
resolve family disputes; (l) avoid adverse tax consequences that
may occur by dissolving a corporation; (m) provide better income
tax treatment than would apply to a corporation or trust; and (n)
provide more flexibility in making investments than a trust
because of the fiduciary standard.
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011