Keith E. and Marilyn B. West - Page 7




                                        - 7 -                                         
          1982 the recyclers were not properly valued at $1,750,000 each,             
          but instead had only a maximum value of $30,000 to $50,000 each.            
          On its 1982, 1983, 1984, and 1985 tax returns, Masters reported             
          net ordinary losses of $713,291, $36,205, $16,720, and $15,832,             
          respectively.  Losses and credits were reported by Masters on its           
          tax returns, and the portions attributable to petitioners,                  
          respectively, were included on Forms K-1 issued to them and filed           
          with Masters’ tax returns.                                                  
          B.  The Private Offering Memorandum                                         
               Generally, Masters distributed a private offering memorandum           
          to potential investors.  The offering memorandum informed                   
          investors that Masters’ business would be conducted in accordance           
          with the transaction described above.  The offering memorandum              
          also warned potential investors of significant business and tax             
          risks associated with investing in Masters.                                 
               Specifically, the offering memorandum warned potential                 
          investors that:  (1) There was a substantial likelihood of an               
          audit by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS); (2) “On audit, the             
          purchase price of the Sentinel EPS recyclers to be paid by F&G to           
          ECI may be challenged by the * * * [IRS] as being in excess of              
          the fair market value thereof, a practice followed by * * * [the            
          IRS] in transactions it deems to be tax shelters”; (3) the                  
          partnership had no prior operating history; (4) the limited                 
          partners would have no control over the conduct of the                      






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