Oreland A. and Lucille S. Thornsjo - Page 7




                                        - 7 -                                         
          credits.  The parties further stipulated that in 1982 the                   
          recyclers were not properly valued at $1,750,000 each but instead           
          had a maximum value of only $30,000 to $50,000 each.  On its                
          1982, 1983, and 1984 tax returns, Hamilton reported net ordinary            
          losses of $713,291, $36,205, and $16,720, respectively.  The                
          losses and credits reported by Hamilton on its tax returns were             
          passed through to Hamilton’s limited partners.  The portions                
          attributable to petitioners, respectively, were included on                 
          Schedules K-1 (Form 1120S), Partners Share of Income, Credits,              
          Deductions, Inc., issued to them and filed with Hamilton’s tax              
          returns.                                                                    
          B.  The Private Offering Memorandum                                         
               Generally, Hamilton distributed a private offering                     
          memorandum to potential investors.  The offering memorandum                 
          informed investors that Hamilton’s 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 Hamilton.               
               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                  




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