- 8 -
The facts of Transpac Drilling Venture 1982-12, are
distinguishable from the facts of this case. Unlike the tax
matters partners in Transpac Drilling Venture 1982-12, nothing
here suggests that the consents were agreed to because Roberts,
acting personally or through his attorney-in-fact, had a powerful
incentive to ingratiate himself with the Government. Nothing
suggests that Roberts was a prospective Government witness
against other promoters of plastics recycling partnerships;
nothing suggests that the consents were agreed to in return for
some grant of immunity or sentencing agreements that depended
upon Roberts’ cooperation with the Government. Indeed, there is
no evidence that Roberts (or his attorney-in-fact) was aware of
the criminal tax investigation at the time the consents were
signed. Unless he was aware of the existence of the criminal
investigation against him, we fail to see how Roberts, acting
personally or through his attorney-in-fact, could have been
influenced by personal concerns in a such a way that he could not
properly discharge his fiduciary duties to the limited partners
of Madison. See Agri-Cal Venture Associates v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 2000-271.
We also disagree with petitioners’ suggestion that the
section 6700 proceedings resulted in a conflict of interest;
those proceedings had been completed, and the section 6700
sanctions were imposed prior to the time that the consents were
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011