- 59 -
Petitioners state in their brief that the sheep partnerships
entered into “transactions with Hoyt and Barnes upon having been
deceived as to the transaction.”14 The record does not support
petitioners’ assertion that the partnerships were deceived in any
way. Although Jay Hoyt and David Barnes did enter into various
partnership agreements and transactions with the intent to
deceive, the victims of their intentional deception were the
individual investors, not the partnerships. Many of the
documents created by the partnership transactions were merely
instruments intentionally used to defraud individual investors by
creating false impressions and making promises known not to be
true.
As previously stated, petitioners readily admit that
investors would not have parted with their money if not for Jay
Hoyt’s deceptive practices. Petitioners’ admission further
emphasizes that the thefts occurred when the individuals were
deceived into parting with their money. The partnerships were
not victims of those deceptive practices and were not deceived by
those practices into parting with any partnership property.
Petitioners fail to show how Jay Hoyt’s theft by deception
perpetrated against the individual partners constitutes a theft
of partnership property under the law of Oregon.
14 Statements in a brief that are not supported by
testimony or documents introduced at trial are not evidence. See
Rule 143(b); Niedringhaus v. Commissioner, 99 T.C. 202, 217 n.7
(1992).
Page: Previous 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011