- 2 -
otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal
Revenue Code, as amended.
The liabilities arose out of petitioners’ participation in a
so-called Hoyt cattle venture. Petitioners acknowledge that this
case is similar to at least 16 other cases involving Hoyt cattle
breeding partnerships that are currently on appeal to the Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, including Ertz v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 2007-15. Petitioners offered to stipulate to be bound
by the outcome of the Ertz case or, in the alternative,
petitioners requested that this case be continued pending action
by the Court of Appeals in Ertz and the cases consolidated with
it on appeal. Respondent declined the stipulation to be bound
and objected to the continuance.
This case has certain “procedural” differences from Ertz and
the other cases. Petitioners resided in Minnesota at the time
that their petition was filed, and, absent stipulation to the
contrary, our decision in this case is not appealable to the
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Also, unlike the other
cases, there is no section 6621(c) issue in this case, so that
the jurisdictional question raised in Ertz is not involved in
this case. Third, the administrative record in this case was
lost and has been recreated by respondent. Thus, testimony of
the Appeals officer who conducted the hearing under section 6330
was taken, notwithstanding respondent’s objection that review
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008