River City Ranches #1 Ltd., Leon Shepard, Tax Matters Partner - Page 14

                                       - 103 -                                         
          and that the partners did not knowingly participate in this                  
          fraud.  Petitioners argue that it would be an absurd result to               
          penalize and impose section 6621(c) interest against these                   
          victims of Jay Hoyt’s fraud, who (petitioners allege) invested               
          without the principal purpose of tax avoidance and genuinely                 
          believed that their partnership was engaged in a legitimate                  
          business activity.                                                           
               Petitioners further argue that since they have conceded all             
          of the depreciation deductions and investment credits that the               
          Hoyt sheep partnerships claimed, the Court should find that there            
          are no valuation overstatements because any statements of value              
          or adjusted basis on the partnership returns concerning the                  
          partnership’s purported breeding sheep are now irrelevant.  In               
          making this argument, petitioners are relying upon and seeking to            
          come within the decisions by the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the              
          Fifth and Ninth Circuits and this Court in Todd v. Commissioner,             
          862 F.2d 540 (5th Cir. 1988), affg. 89 T.C. 912 (1987), Gainer v.            
          Commissioner, 893 F.2d 225 (9th Cir. 1990), affg. T.C. Memo.                 
          1988-416, and McCrary v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 827 (1989),                   
          respectively.                                                                
               Todd, Gainer, and McCrary all held that the section 6659                
          addition to tax for valuation overstatement was inapplicable                 
          where the taxpayer conceded that no deductions or credits were               
          allowable, due to property not having been placed in service.                






Page:  Previous  93  94  95  96  97  98  99  100  101  102  103  104  105  106  107  108  109  110  111  112  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011