- 61 -
Yet, petitioners did not specify which alleged unlawful activity
was committed to obtain the proceeds.
Jay Hoyt’s indictment specifically stated the underlying
unlawful activity committed in Oregon and presented 17 specific
monetary transactions (negotiated checks) constituting money
laundering.15 Because those checks bore dates in 1997 or 1998,
each check was negotiated after the tax years here at issue. See
supra p. 50. Petitioners did not introduce any checks or similar
evidence of any monetary transactions that were negotiated during
any of the years at issue.
Petitioners have not proven that any of the partnerships
were victimized during the years at issue by a violation of
either of the Oregon money laundering statutes. Petitioners
failed to present any evidence proving the elements of either
crime. Thus, by merely citing the two Oregon money laundering
statutes and not proving the elements of those crimes,
petitioners have not established a theft on the partnership level
for any of the years at issue.
(iv) Analysis of Case Law Cited by Petitioners
We now address the following cases which petitioners rely
upon as authority to support their various arguments that the
sheep partnerships are entitled to a theft loss deduction.
15 The specified unlawful activities used to establish
money laundering at Jay Hoyt’s criminal trial were mail fraud and
bankruptcy fraud.
Page: Previous 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011