- 61 -
Respondent suggests that the May 1986 proposal and June 1986
proposal lacked genuine substance because they omitted certain
elements previously demanded by DOE and were motivated purely by
tax considerations.33 We disagree. Extensive, uncontradicted
testimony convinces us that these were reasonable business
proposals put forward by the partnership’s principals in good-
faith negotiations with DOE.
Ultimately, the project assets were taken from the
partnership involuntarily through the foreclosure process. Even
then, the partnership did not abandon the assets. To the
contrary, as previously discussed, ANR, with at least the tacit
approval of the partnership’s other partners and ultimately with
33 In support of his claim that there was no substantive
nontax purpose for these proposals, respondent cites several
internal memoranda written and exchanged by the partners. Among
those internal memoranda is a Tenneco interoffice communication
dated August 26, 1987 (Exhibit 314-R), which states in part:
The * * * [4 partners other than ANR] previously
refused to actively participate in the appeal because
of the desire to minimize legal exposure on other
matters and the lack of optimism associated with the
litigation. Transco and Pacific * * * have changed
their position and would vote to ratify * * * [ANR’s]
efforts. Midcon is still opposed. A change in our
position would allow the opinion process to go forward.
At trial, petitioner raised evidentiary objections to this
document based on authenticity and completeness. The Court
overruled the objection as to completeness but reserved ruling on
the authenticity objection, inviting the parties to address the
issue on brief. Petitioner has not addressed this issue on
brief. Consequently, we deem petitioner to have waived
authenticity objections to this document, and we shall receive
Exhibit 314-R into evidence.
Page: Previous 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011