- 21 -
principal in an investment advisory firm (the Nanberg affidavit).
Mr. Nanberg professes to be knowledgeable “regarding the trading
markets that may exist for various financial instruments and * *
* whether or not price quotations therefore [sic] are readily
available”. Mr. Nanberg, after finding that the AIG notes “were
not listed or traded on an established financial market” and that
“no such market existed for the * * * [AIG] Notes on Dec. 26,
2000, or at any time thereafter,” concludes that the AIG notes
“were neither liquid nor easily offset on Dec. 26, 2000 or at any
time thereafter.” The second is the affidavit of Samuel Ross
(Mr. Ross) who, in 2000, was the treasurer of AMW Realty Corp.
(the 1-percent general partner in MP) and was personally involved
in the negotiation and MP’s acquisition of the AIG notes. Mr.
Ross states that “[a]ll terms of the transaction in which * * *
[MP] acquired the * * * [AIG] Notes are contained * * * [in the
notes themselves and in the related documentation]”, and “[t]here
was no agreement, understanding, or arrangement, written or oral,
binding or non-binding, between * * * [MP and AIG] that modifies
the terms of * * * [those] documents.”
Participating partner argues that respondent’s reliance upon
the partnership antiabuse rules contained in the regulations is
misplaced. He argues that the purpose of respondent’s reliance
upon section 1.701-2, Income Tax Regs., is unclear; but that, if
it is cited in support of respondent’s argument that MP must
reduce the basis for its assets or, alternatively, that
Countryside may not increase the basis for its assets as a result
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008