Hoyt Fiasco: $103M Heist + Kevin Brown's Criminal Cover-up
Victim information, evidence, rules of law, IRS viewpoints
Bookmark and Share

HOME

     Why did the IRS lead prosecuting attorney in the Hoyt case quit in disgust?
 

The Hoyt Fiasco:
Attachment to Berner Letter

Go to Berner Letter

February 4, 1999
Phillips (Petitioners) v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (Respondent)
Docket No. 9354-96
BR—Hoyt Farms
Judge Goldberg

Curtis Berner (Counsel for Petitioners) Margaret A. Martin (Counsel for IRS)

 

SECOND STIPULATION OF FACTS

(These are EXCERPTS)

The parties agree to this stipulation of facts pursuant to Tax Court Rule 91. All stipulated facts shall be conclusive. All stipulated original exhibits shall be considered authentic. All stipulated copies shall be considered duplicates of the originals as defined in Fed. R. Evid. Sec. 1001 (4)....

  1. On or around July 28, 1989, the respondent's Examination Division referred a case involving Walter J. Hoyt, III (hereinafter "Hoyt") to its Criminal Investigation Division (hereinafter "CID").
  2. On October 13, 1989, the United States Attorney’s Office requested CID to review information to determine whether CID’s agents should join in the United States Attorney’s Office’s ongoing grand jury investigation of Hoyt.
  3. On October 17, 1989, CID accepted the Examination Division’s fraud referral (referenced in paragraph 11 above) for investigations.
  4. On October 30, 1989, the respondent’s Regional Commissioner approved CID’s Request for Grand Jury Investigation.
  5. On November 3, 1989, the respondent’s Regional Counsel Office requested that CID agents be authorized to participate in the United States Attorney’s Office’s ongoing grand jury investigation, to investigate potential Title 26 violations.
  6. CID’s work on the 1989 grand jury investigation was finished no later than October 1, 1990, and probably long before October 1, 1990.
  7. The 1989 grand jury investigation of Hoyt was declined by the United States Attorney’s Office and closed on October 2, 1990.
  1. Jill Page, Group Manager, countersigned consents extending partnership limitations periods, copies of which are attached to the First Stipulation of Pacts in this case as Joint Exhibits 28-AP, 29-AC, 30-AD, 37-AK, 38-AL, 3.97AM, 42-AP, 43-AQ, and 44-AQ, on behalf of the respondent. At the time she countersigned Joint Exhibits 28-AB, 29-AC, 30-AD, 37-AK, 38-AL, 39-AM, 42-AP, 43-AQ, and 44-AR, she had knowledge of the criminal investigation referenced in paragraph 11 of the First Stipulation of Facts in this case. At the time she countersigned Joint Exhibits 28-AB, 29-AC, 30-AD, 37-AK, 38-AL, 39-AM, 42-AP, 43-AQ, and 44-AR, she did not have knowledge of any grand jury investigation of Hoyt. She does not -recall having any knowledge of the existence of the July 28, 1989 Examination referral referenced in paragraph 11 of this Second Stipulation of Facts at the time she countersigned Joint Exhibits 28-AB, 29-AC, 30-AD, 37-AK, 38-AL, 39-AM, 42-AP, 43-AQ, and 44-AR.
  1. Tom Ballard, Group Manager, countersigned consents extending partnership limitations periods, copies of which are attached to the First Stipulation of Facts in this case as Joint Exhibits 27-AA, 35-AI, 36-AJ, 66-BN, 67-BO, and 68-BP, on behalf of the respondent. At the time he countersigned Joint Exhibits 27-AA, 35-AI, 36-AJ, 66-BN, 67-BO, and 68-BP, he had knowledge of the criminal investigation referenced in paragraph 11 of the First Stipulation of Facts in this case, the July 28, 1989 Examination referral referenced in paragraph 11 of this Second Stipulation of Facts, and the grand jury investigation that is referenced in paragraphs 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17 of this Second stipulation of Facts.
  2. Hoyt timely filed Petitions with this court with respect to all of the Notices of Final Partnership Administrative Adjustment ("FPAA") referenced in the First Stipulation of Facts in this case. (The petitioners do not stipulate that Hoyt had the authority to file such Petitions) All of the Tax Court cases that commenced with the filing of such petitions were still pending in this Court as of April 17, 1995, the date that the petitioners' partnership items with respect to SGE 83-2, DSBS 87-E, and TBS J.V. were converted to nonpartnership items upon the petitioners' filing of a petition in bankruptcy.

 

STUART L. BROWN
Chief Counsel
Internal Revenue Service

Go to Berner Letter

Last updated: Tuesday, May 27, 2014

Questions, problems? Want to render assistance?
Write to hoyt @mindconnection.com (paste this address into your e-mail program, and delete the space).

Hoyt Fiasco site homepage | Mindconnection homepage


Disclaimer: The facts represented here are as accurate as a reasonable investigation can determine. Mindconnection hosts this site at no charge to the Hoyt victims, to expose this miscarriage of justice.