- 82 -
Petitioners have failed to establish the elements necessary
to assert judicial estoppel against respondent. Therefore,
judicial estoppel cannot be utilized to prevent respondent from
disputing petitioners’ claim of the existence and amount of the
thefts from the partnerships.
D. Conclusion
This Court is well aware of Jay Hoyt’s criminal activities
and the harm he has caused to thousands of individuals. Further,
we sympathize with those that were defrauded by Jay Hoyt’s
deceptive practices. However, petitioners did not introduce any
evidence at trial which would support a finding that a theft loss
occurred on the partnership level during each of the years at
issue. Petitioners have not met the elements required to sustain
a section 165 theft loss deduction. Accordingly, we hold that
petitioners have failed to establish that the nine sheep
partnerships are entitled to theft loss deductions in any of the
years at issue.
Issue 2. Expiration of the Period of Limitations
A. The Parties’ Arguments
1. Petitioners’ Arguments
In their amended petitions, petitioners specifically pleaded
that the period of limitations had expired for each of the years
at issue. On brief, petitioners now assert that the period of
limitations has expired only with respect to the following
Page: Previous 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011