Eugene A. Sanders - Page 5

                                        - 5 -                                         
          of petitioner’s investment contribution, and the remainder was              
          remitted to Hoyt.                                                           
               A year after petitioner’s initial investment in Timeshares,            
          petitioner’s investment was transferred by Hoyt to Durham                   
          Shorthorn Breed Syndicate 1987-C (Durham).6  Petitioner did not             
          sign or receive any partnership documents from Hoyt, such as a              
          subscription agreement, power of attorney, or joint venture                 
          partnership agreement, with respect to Durham.  Petitioner was              
          not concerned that his investment was transferred by Hoyt to a              
          different partnership.7                                                     
               At no time during his investment was petitioner aware of the           
          number of cattle owned by Durham.  At no time did petitioner                
          request or review Durham’s tax returns or other partnership                 
          records.  The only financial information petitioner received from           
          Durham was a Schedule K-1, Partner’s Share of Income, Credits,              
          Deductions, Etc., issued for each taxable year 1989, 1990, and              
          1991.  Petitioner had no “idea what the numbers on the [Schedule]           
          K-1 entailed.”                                                              

               6  Durham is similar to the cattle-breeding partnership at             
          issue in the Court’s opinion in Durham Farms #1, J.V. v.                    
          Commissioner, supra.                                                        
               7  For instance, one of petitioner’s tax returns listed his            
          Hoyt partnership investment as Poison Creek.  After an inquiry              
          with Hoyt, petitioner was told that “it doesn’t make any                    
          difference.  It’s all the same.”  Petitioner added that “It was             
          so convoluted that it was hard to figure out what was going on.”            

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011