River City Ranches #1 Ltd., Leon Shepard, Tax Matters Partner - Page 113

                                        - 98 -                                         
          Accordingly, the argument that an ongoing criminal tax                       
          investigation created a disabling conflict for Jay Hoyt in                   
          executing these extensions is without merit, since no criminal               
          investigations of Jay Hoyt were being conducted when these                   
          extensions were executed.                                                    
               The extension concerning RCR #4’s 1984 taxable year was                 
          executed by Jay Hoyt and the IRS on August 1, 1987, shortly                  
          before the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Sacramento declined to                  
          prosecute him for his alleged backdating of documents.  As this              
          Court observed in Phillips v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. at 152,                 
          however, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Transpac             
          did not assume that the mere existence of an investigation would             
          subvert a TMP’s judgment and bend him to the Government’s will in            
          dereliction of his fiduciary duties to his partners.                         
               As in Phillips, there is no evidence in the instant case                
          that Jay Hoyt executed the extensions under pressure in exchange             
          for leniency in relation to any criminal tax investigation of                
          him.  In addition, Jay Hoyt continued to defend the legitimacy of            
          the sheep partnerships as he did with the cattle partnerships in             
          the Phillips case.  With only minor exceptions, Jay Hoyt executed            
          the extensions in the instant case during the same time period he            
          executed the extensions in Phillips.                                         
               In the instant case, the Court concludes that petitioners               
          have failed to establish that Jay Hoyt, in executing the                     






Page:  Previous  88  89  90  91  92  93  94  95  96  97  98  99  100  101  102  103  104  105  106  107  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011