- 14 -
passed the memorandum on to Ronald Sacco (Sacco), a tax
professional at Alexander Grant, for review. According to
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 petitioner or the memorandum.
Dooskin made no separate charge to petitioner 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, a tax partner with Becker
Co., submitted a protest letter (protest letter) to respondent on
behalf of SAB Management. The protest letter 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
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