Robert and Grace Bergevin - Page 2




                                        - 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