-20-
petitioner argues, the consents which Steele signed after July
1991 were invalid because respondent should have removed Steele
as TMP on account of the grand jury investigation. According to
petitioner, respondent’s failure to remove Steele as TMP by
sending the notices referenced in section 301.6231(c)-5T,
Temporary Proced. & Admin. Regs., 52 Fed. Reg. 6793 (Mar. 5,
1987), was an abuse of discretion.
We reject both of petitioner’s arguments. As to the first,
i.e., a claimed disabling conflict of interest, we are not
persuaded that Steele’s interests as to the Leatherstocking audit
differed from the interests of the Leatherstocking limited
partners, so as to constitute a breach of any fiduciary duty that
he owed to them. Nor does the record establish more specifically
that a conflict of interest was present as to Steele’s granting
of the consents, or that respondent ever perceived that a
conflict existed between Steele’s interests and those of his
partners. Indeed, while petitioner called three limited partners
to testify at trial, none of them testified that he would have
objected to the consents had he known about them when they were
signed.5
5 Moreover, as to the reasons proffered by petitioner, we do
not find as a fact that Steele granted the consents to avoid his
criminal referral for failing to file his Federal income tax
returns, or that he granted the consents to conceal any theft
from the Leatherstocking limited partners. To the contrary,
given the number of consents Steele signed during the
(continued...)
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011