- 24 -
units in the partnership. A careful consideration of the
memorandum, and the discussion of high writeoffs and risk of
audit, would have alerted a prudent investor to question the
nature of the promised tax benefits.
Moreover, the tax opinion made clear that there was no
independent evaluation of the SAB Foam transactions. The opinion
indicated that Boylan & Evans relied on the statements of the
general partner and “other statements of fact and opinion
furnished to us by persons familiar with the transaction
described in the Memorandum.” Boylan & Evans clearly based its
conclusion about the fair market value of the recyclers on the
assumption that the parties to the transactions had negotiated
prices at arm’s length. In light of the close relationships
existing among the parties to the SAB transactions and the
enormous price paid for the recyclers (largely with nonrecourse
notes exchanged in a plainly circular transaction), petitioner
should have questioned whether the prices were in fact negotiated
at arm’s length. Under these circumstances, petitioner’s claim
that he reasonably and in good faith relied on the tax opinion is
unconvincing. A sophisticated, experienced, and intelligent
lawyer like petitioner would know, or at least should know,
better than to rely blindly upon a document with the warnings and
defects of the memorandum.
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011