River City Ranches #1 Ltd., Leon Shepard, Tax Matters Partner - Page 99

                                        - 84 -                                         
          Phillips v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 115 (2000), affd. 272 F.3d                
          1172 (9th Cir. 2001), petitioners are not claiming that section              
          301.6231(c)-5T, Temporary Proced. & Admin. Regs., supra, in whole            
          or part, is invalid or that the IRS abused its discretion in                 
          failing to issue Jay Hoyt (the TMP) the notice that it would                 
          treat his items as nonpartnership items.  Petitioners simply                 
          argue that the temporary regulation in question is mandatory and             
          not discretionary.                                                           
               Alternatively, petitioners argue that Jay Hoyt, as the TMP,             
          could not bind the partners of the partnership because he                    
          suffered from numerous disabling conflicts of interest and could             
          not properly represent the interests of the partners.                        
          Petitioners maintain that Jay Hoyt’s disabling conflicts of                  
          interest bring the instant case squarely within the Court of                 
          Appeals for the Second Circuit’s holding in Transpac Drilling                
          Venture 1982-12 v. Commissioner, 147 F.3d 221 (2d Cir. 1998),                
          revg. and remanding T.C. Memo. 1994-26.                                      
               Petitioners maintain that these alleged disabling conflicts             
          of interest on the part of Jay Hoyt involved other conflicts                 
          besides the criminal tax investigations.  Petitioners allege that            
          these other conflicts include Jay Hoyt’s:  (1) Perpetrating an               
          ongoing fraud upon the partners by misrepresenting the numbers               
          and values of their livestock, while purporting to act as the                
          partners’ fiduciary; (2) diverting partner contributions to his              






Page:  Previous  74  75  76  77  78  79  80  81  82  83  84  85  86  87  88  89  90  91  92  93  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011