- 14 -
Dooskin, Sacco’s view was that the investment and the economics
of the deal were “dependent upon the valuation of the equipment”.
After Dooskin and Sacco each spent about 3 hours reviewing the
matter, Dooskin concluded that the proposal “looked like a
legitimate business, * * * compressing plastic, and that it was
better than most”. Neither Dooskin nor Sacco performed an
independent analysis of the valuation of the recyclers. All of
Dooskin’s and Sacco’s information relating to the valuation of
the recyclers came from either Lewin or the memorandum. Dooskin
made no separate charge to Lewin for the few hours he and his
associate spent examining the memorandum.
D. Partnership-Level Litigation
On August 15, 1988, respondent issued a notice of proposed
adjustments to tax return to SAB Foam for 1982 and 1983. On
September 28, 1988, Robert L. Steele (Steele), a tax partner with
Becker Co., submitted a protest letter (protest) to respondent on
behalf of SAB Management. The protest included the following
statement:
We hereby agree to follow the Tax Court’s decision in
the lead cases selected in accordance with the Order of
June 12, 1987, such cases being:
1. Elliot I. Miller, Petitioner
v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent,
Docket No. 10382-86
2. Elliot I. Miller and Myra K. Miller, Petitioner
Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent,
Docket No. 10383-86
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011