William R. and Betty O. Bass - Page 7




                                        - 7 -                                         
               that the agreements between the partnerships and the                   
               proposed research and development contractor, U.S. Agri                
               Research & Development Corp. (U.S. Agri), had been                     
               designed and entered into solely to provide a mechanism                
               to disguise the capital contributions of limited                       
               partners as currently deductible expenditures.  The                    
               Court stated that the activities of the partnerships                   
               were “another example of efforts by promoters and                      
               investors in the early 1980's to reduce the cost of                    
               commencing and engaging in the farming of jojoba by                    
               claiming, inaccurately, that capital expenditures in                   
               jojoba plantations might be treated as research or                     
               experimental expenditures for purposes of claiming                     
               deductions under section 174.”  * * *  [Fn. ref.                       
               omitted.]                                                              
          More details concerning the partnerships and the investors are              
          found in the records and in the opinions in other cases in which            
          we have sustained additions to tax arising out of investments in            
          the jojoba plant partnerships.  As the Court stated in Kellen v.            
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-19:                                           
                    We have decided many jojoba cases involving                       
               additions to tax for negligence and substantial                        
               understatement of tax liability. 15/  We have found the                
               taxpayers liable for additions to tax for negligence in                
               all of those cases; likewise, we have found the                        
               taxpayers liable for the addition to tax for                           
               substantial understatement of tax liability in all of                  
               those cases that have presented that issue.                            
               __________________                                                     
               15/  See, e.g., Lopez v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.                      
               2001-278; Christensen v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-                
               185; Serfustini v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-183;                  
               Carmena v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-177; Nilsen v.                
               Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-163; Ruggiero v.                         
               Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-162; Robnett v.                          
               Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-17; Harvey v.                            
               Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-16; Hunt v. Commissioner,                
               T.C. Memo. 2001-15; Fawson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.                 
               2000-195; Downs v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-155;                  
               Glassley v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-206;                         
               Stankevich v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-458.                       







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

Last modified: March 27, 2008