- 23 -
weight: The omission of petitioner’s name could have been due to
any of a number of reasons, such as an oversight by the person
who prepared the Schedule K-1. In short, this document standing
alone does not corroborate petitioner’s assertion that she was
not an investor in RCR #1.
Aside from the Schedule K-1, the primary evidence in the
record that petitioner was not an investor in RCR #1 is
petitioner’s own testimony. In her testimony, petitioner
admitted that she was at the investment sales meeting with Mr.
Barnes and Mr. Hoyt. Petitioner, however, stated that she was
“sort of there in body but not really in spirit or mind”, because
she was preoccupied with the state of her marriage and because
she was worried about her daughter. Petitioner nevertheless
testified in great detail concerning certain aspects of this
meeting. For example, petitioner testified that she recalled the
posture of herself and Mr. Barnes in their chairs, and she stated
that Mr. Hoyt “wasn’t even making eye contact with me that much”.
She also stated that she recalled Mr. Hoyt’s mentioning that he
was an enrolled agent, at which point petitioner, according to
her testimony, asked him what an enrolled agent was. Petitioner
further stated that she did not realize, at the time the meeting
took place, that Mr. Hoyt was attempting to convince petitioner
and Mr. Barnes to make an investment in the partnership. On the
other hand, petitioner testified that she does recall Mr. Hoyt’s
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011