- 36 -
that he does not verify. See Addington v. Commissioner, 205 F.3d
at 58; Goldman v. Commissioner, 39 F.3d at 408; Skeen v.
Commissioner, 864 F.2d 93 (9th Cir. 1989), affg. Patin v.
Commissioner, 88 T.C. 1086 (1987); Lax v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1994-329, affd. 72 F.3d 123 (3d Cir. 1995); Rogers v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1990-619.
4. Cohen and Feinberg
Petitioner also relied upon his partners Cohen and
Feinberg.8 Cohen’s knowledge of the SAB Foam transactions was
derived from his review of the memorandum and his discussions
with Becker. Cohen testified that Becker told him he could rely
on the valuations attached to the memorandum.9 Feinberg’s
knowledge of the SAB Foam transactions was also derived from his
review of the memorandum and his discussions with Becker. After
Becker retained Feinberg to protect Becker’s interests as general
partner of SAB Foam, Feinberg instructed Becker to verify the
information in the memorandum, including the valuations, and
8 Feinberg testified that “there was a very, very close
professional as well as a personal and social relationship among
us” and that they “shared information on a daily basis”.
9 We note that Cohen testified: “I remember we talked
about the valuations that were obtained and I remember him
telling me in words or in substance that I could rely on those
valuations.” We consider Cohen’s testimony inconsistent with
Becker’s testimony, and as to this matter we consider Becker’s
testimony reliable and Cohen’s alleged recollection unreliable.
See supra note 7 to the effect that this problem was known to
petitioner and his counsel, who chose not to call upon Becker for
clarifying testimony.
Page: Previous 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011