- 26 -
Secondly, the version of events presented by petitioner in
her prior testimony, discussed in detail above,9 also clearly
indicates that petitioner considered herself an investor in 1981.
While she stated that her decision to invest was influenced by
family ties, she also stated that she understood that she was
making a long-term investment and that she signed documents
relating to that investment.
Finally, certain of petitioner’s assertions at trial and on
brief are also contradicted by the facts alleged in the first
Amendment to Petition in which petitioner set forth her claim for
section 6015 relief. In this pleading, while petitioner did
allege that she “did not have any real choice in the investment,
but was drawn into the investment by Don Barnes to support the
family business”, she also alleged that “At the time of the
investment, [she] understood that the investment was a long term
retirement investment in the family ranching enterprise, as well
as some tax advantages associated with the investment”. This
latter allegation contradicts petitioner’s assertion at trial and
on brief that she did not realize that an investment had been
made until the tax return was filed. Even more contradictory is
petitioner’s allegation in the pleading that, when she and Mr.
Barnes “originally signed the partnership documents, they were
advised by Jay Hoyt that they were signing on as ‘Limited
9See discussion infra note 10.
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011