- 46 -
Although Jay Hoyt’s indictment dealt with fraud perpetrated
against individual investors through the use of cattle
partnerships only, the judgment ordered restitution to all the
partners in the cattle and sheep partnerships. By definition,
restitution is the “act of making good or giving equivalent for
any loss, damage, or injury.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1180 (5th
ed. 1979). Further, a general obligation exists for a person who
defrauds another to make restitution to the person defrauded.
Kreimer v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1983-672. Accordingly, the
U.S. District Court would not have ordered Jay Hoyt to pay
restitution to the sheep partners had they not been victims of
his crimes. Moreover, in Jay Hoyt’s appeal of his conviction, he
did not argue that the U.S. District Court erred by including the
sheep partners in the restitution order. See United States v.
Hoyt, supra.
Because the sheep partners were included in the restitution
order and all the sheep partnerships were formed, organized, and
operated in essentially the same fashion as the cattle
partnerships, we conclude that Jay Hoyt defrauded the individual
investors in the nine sheep partnerships in the same manner that
he was convicted of defrauding the individual investors in the
cattle partnerships.
Petitioners state that the “conviction established Hoyt’s
theft from all his partners and partnerships.” Petitioners
Page: Previous 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011