- 44 -
partnership property from each of the sheep partnerships.
Petitioners rely on Jay Hoyt’s Federal conviction and three
Oregon statutes that are similar to the Federal criminal statutes
Jay Hoyt was convicted of violating as proof of the occurrence of
a theft from the partnerships. On the premise that Jay Hoyt’s
conviction establishes a theft from the individual investors,
petitioners claim that the partnerships were the victims of Jay
Hoyt’s theft, because “a theft from all the partners, is a theft
from the partnerships.” Finally, petitioners cite various cases
for propositions that they assert establish a theft from the
partnerships.
The Court is mindful that throughout all of petitioners’
arguments dealing with a theft loss, they treat “partners” and
“partnerships” as the same, making no clear distinction between
these terms. As set forth infra pp. 51-55, a clear distinction
exists under both California and Nevada law. Further, a
distinction between partners and partnerships exists under
Federal law. See sec. 6226.
Because all the partnerships at issue are subject to the
provisions enacted in the Tax Equity & Fiscal Responsibility Act
of 1982 (TEFRA), Pub. L. 97-248, sec. 402(a), 96 Stat. 648, our
jurisdiction is limited exclusively to the determination of the
tax treatment of partnership items for the partnership year to
which the FPAA relates. See sec. 6226; infra pp. 108-109. We
Page: Previous 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011