Great Plains Gasification Associates, A Partnership, Transco Coal Gas Company, A Partner Other Than The Tax Matters Partner - Page 57

                                        - 57 -                                        
               B.  Whether the Partnership Abandoned the Property                     
               On brief, respondent argues alternatively that even if the             
          June 30, 1986, foreclosure sale did not constitute a final                  
          disposition of the partnership’s project assets, the partnership            
          had abandoned the project as of June 30, 1986, or alternatively,            
          as of July 14, 1986 (the date the District Court overruled ANR’s            
          objections and confirmed the foreclosure sale).31  Respondent has           
          conceded, consistent with the holding of his September 1986                 
          letter ruling, that no abandonment had occurred as of May 22,               
          1986.  As we understand respondent’s somewhat mercurial position            
          in this proceeding, events occurring between May 22 and June 30,            
          1986, or possibly between May 22 and July 14, 1986, or possibly             


               30(...continued)                                                       
          project assets were owned by the United States and consequently,            
          pursuant to secs. 1.47-2(a)(2) and 1.48-1(k), Income Tax Regs.,             
          the project assets ceased to qualify as sec. 38 property as of              
          June 30, 1986.  It is not the foreclosure sale itself but the               
          “transfer upon the foreclosure” that represents the final                   
          disposition of assets that would trigger tax credit recapture.              
          Sec. 1.47-2(a)(1), Income Tax Regs.  As respondent has conceded,            
          a bona fide contest as to the existence of redemption rights                
          postpones a disposition pursuant to a foreclosure sale.                     
               31 On opening brief (but not on reply brief), respondent               
          contends broadly that both the partnership and Transco had                  
          abandoned their interests in the project as of June 30, 1986.               
          Inconsistently, respondent’s response to petitioner’s motion in             
          limine, filed Jan. 31, 2005, states: “Respondent no longer                  
          contends that the Court should consider the issue of whether the            
          partners abandoned their partnership interests in GPGA.”  We deem           
          respondent to have waived any claim that Transco abandoned its              
          partnership interest or its interests in the project (which arose           
          only by virtue of Transco’s partnership interest).  Consequently,           
          we need not address whether such a partner-level inquiry is                 
          appropriate in this TEFRA proceeding.                                       




Page:  Previous  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  61  62  63  64  65  66  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011