River City Ranches #1 Ltd., Leon Shepard, Tax Matters Partner - Page 110

                                        - 95 -                                         
               “The facts of the matter speak for themselves.” Id. at                  
               227.  The IRS had sought waivers of the statute of                      
               limitations from the limited partners, who refused to                   
               execute them.  The IRS then went to the three TMPs who                  
               knew themselves to be under criminal investigation in                   
               connection with the partnership and were cooperating                    
               with the government in its case against another                         
               partner.  As the court observed, they had “a powerful                   
               incentive to ingratiate themselves to the government.”                  
               Id.  They gave the waivers the IRS wanted.  The court                   
               properly found the waivers invalid.  Trust law,                         
               generally, invalidates the transaction of a trustee who                 
               is breaching his trust in a transaction in which the                    
               other party is aware of the breach.  See Restatement of                 
               Trusts, secs. 288-297.  Transpac is a salutary                          
               application of this rule to the particular case of a                    
               TMP who should have been seen by the IRS as laboring                    
               under an incapacitating conflict of interest.                           
               Two circumstances differentiate this case.  The IRS                     
               made no attempt to get waivers from limited partners.                   
               The partnerships for which Hoyt was being investigated                  
               have not been shown to be the partnerships involved in                  
               this case.  It is not intuitively obvious that Hoyt did                 
               what is a routine accommodation--signing a waiver in                    
               order to avoid immediate assessment by the IRS--in                      
               order to ingratiate himself in the investigation of his                 
               partnerships.  Phillips has speculated that Hoyt so                     
               acted; he has not proved it.                                            
          Similarly, this Court in Phillips v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. at               
          131-132, in  distinguishing the facts in Phillips from those in              
          Transpac, noted that there was no evidence that:  (1) The IRS                
          approached the limited partners to execute extensions or that                
          they refused to sign such extensions; (2) the promoter-TMP Jay               
          Hoyt was, before or during the relevant period, indicted or                  
          convicted of a tax felony or cooperating with the Government; or             
          (3) the IRS misled the partners about the existence of criminal              
          tax investigations or ever instructed Jay Hoyt to say nothing                






Page:  Previous  85  86  87  88  89  90  91  92  93  94  95  96  97  98  99  100  101  102  103  104  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011