- 21 -
factual basis, and Commissioner made no attempt to obtain
relevant information before adopting his position), affd. in
part, revd. in part, and remanded in part 43 F.3d 172 (5th Cir.
1995).
Second, in determining that petitioner had actual knowledge,
respondent failed to evaluate properly the standard for actual
knowledge articulated in King v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 198
(2001), and Mora v. Commissioner, supra, in light of the
extensive information he had acquired regarding the operation of
the Hoyt partnerships. When the notice of determination was
issued on September 10, 2002, the Service had already entered
into a settlement agreement with Mr. Hoyt and was well aware of
the basis for adjusting the Hoyt partnership items at issue in
this case. See River City Ranches #1, Ltd. v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2003-150; affd. in part, revd. in part and remanded 401
F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2005); Mekulsia v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
2003-138, affd. 389 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 2004); Durham Farms #1
J.V. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-159, affd. 59 Fed. Appx.
952 (9th Cir. 2003); Shorthorn Genetic Engg. 1982-2, Ltd. v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-515; Bales v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1989-568. Moreover, it was a matter of public record as of
September 10, 2002, that Mr. Hoyt had overstated the number and
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011