River City Ranches #1 Ltd., Jeffry Bergamyer, Tax Matters Partner - Page 3




                                        - 3 -                                         
          petitioners additional discovery limited to whether Walter J.               
          Hoyt III (Hoyt), then the tax matters partner (TMP), executed               
          consents to extend the limitations periods while disabled by                
          conflicts between his own interests and those of his partners,              
          and for any necessary retrial following such discovery.                     
               Pursuant to the remand, petitioners deposed three present              
          and/or former employees of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS),              
          respondent made available to petitioners his entire store of                
          documents that had not been produced earlier, and the Court held            
          a second trial.                                                             
               We must now decide two issues.  First,3 in the following               
          cases, we must make factual findings regarding whether the sheep            
          partnership transactions were tax-motivated transactions (i.e.,             
          whether the transactions or the partnerships themselves were                
          shams and/or whether there were asset overvaluations and basis              
          overstatements) for purposes of the section 6621(c) penalty-                
          interest provisions:                                                        



               3Normally, before deciding other issues we would decide                
          whether the period of limitations on assessment had expired when            
          respondent issued the notices of final partnership administrative           
          adjustment (FPAAs).  However, the parties agree that the FPAAs              
          for the partnerships’ 1986 taxable years were timely issued, and            
          we must decide the sec. 6621(c) penalty-interest issue for that             
          year in all events.  Since findings as to whether the partnership           
          transactions or the partnerships themselves were shams and/or               
          whether there were asset overvaluations and basis overstatements            
          for purposes of the sec. 6621(c) penalty-interest provisions are            
          factors to be considered in deciding the limitations period                 
          issue, we will decide the sec. 6621(c) issue first.                         





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

Last modified: November 10, 2007