- 31 -
In connection with its involvement in the second lease strip
deal, petitioner did not obtain an outside appraisal as to the
value of the over lease residual interests in the K-Mart and
Shared equipment or tax advice regarding that deal from an
independent, qualified tax adviser. Crispin and Hughes analyzed
the second lease strip deal, and Hughes prepared an analysis of
the value of the over lease residual interests before CMACM’s
entering into its transaction with CAP. Hughes, in valuing the
over lease residual interests, considered an earlier appraisal
report (the Marshall & Stevens appraisal) on the master lease
residual interests in the K-Mart, Shared, and other equipment
that was done by Ralph Page of the firm of Marshall & Stevens and
furnished it to CFX.
Late in 1994 and in early 1995, petitioner, Crispin, and
others obtained and used the following items in the marketing of
the first lease strip deal to CFX: (1) The Marshall & Stevens
appraisal; (2) another similar appraisal report on the master
lease residual interests done by the firm of Murray, Devine & Co.
that was also furnished to CFX (the Murray, Devine appraisal);
and (3) the tax opinion issued to CFX by the law firm Thacher
Proffitt & Wood, as CFP’s counsel (the Thacher Proffitt tax
opinion). Petitioner and Crispin were familiar with the IRS’s
October 30, 1995, issuance of Notice 95-53, 1995-2 C.B. 334,
warning that the Commissioner would challenge and disallow on
Page: Previous 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011