N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
SIXTY-THR EE STR

ATEGIC INVESTM E NT FUNDS a n d PR ESIDO GR OW TH LLC ,

Pe t i tione rs,
and J. PAUL R

EDDAM and C L AR ENC E VENTUR

ES, LLC , Inte rve nors-Appe lla

nts,
v. UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

R e sponde nt-Appe lle e . No. 15-15525 D.C . No. 3:05-c v-01123-R S
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia R ic ha rd Se e borg, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M a

y 18, 2017 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia 

# F IL ED
JUN 7 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , W ARDLAW , C irc u it Judge , a nd B ENC IVENGO, ** Distric t Judge
. J. Pa ul R e dda m an d his single -m e m

b e r LLC , C la

re nc e Ve nture s (c olle c tive ly

“ R e dda m ” ), a ppe a l the distric t c o urt’ s grant of sum m ary judgm e nt to the g ove rnm e nt. W e hav e jurisdic t ion pursua nt to 26 U.S.C
. § 6226(g) a nd 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

nd we a ffirm . B e c a

use the pa rtie s a re fa m ilia r with the fa c ts of this c a s e , we do not re pe a t the m he re . R e dda m and C la re nc e Ve nture s, LLC are inte rve nors in theunde rly ing suit brought by

Pre sidio Growth, LLC(“ Pre sidio” ) on be ha l f of strate gic inve stm e nt funds (a lso LLC s) tha

t we re be ing inve stiga

te d by the IR S for the ir pa rtic ipation in
a tax she lte r known a s “ B o nd Linke d Issue Pre m i um Struc ture ,” or “ B LIPS.” R e dda m pa rtic i pate d in B LIPS by

form ing C la

re nc e Ve nture s LLC , whic h inve ste d in the Forak e r Stra te gic Inve stm e nt Fund (“ Fora ke r” ). B oth R e dda m and C la re nc e Ve nture s are “ pa

rtne rs” in Fora

ke r, 26 U.S.C
. § 6231(a )(2), and Pre sidio wa s Fora ke r’ s tax m atte rs pa

rtne r. Fora ke r file d its 1999 pa

rtne rship ta

x re turn on April 13, 2000, so a bse nt a n
e xte nsion of the sta

t ute of lim ita

tions, theIR S ha d until April 15, 2003, to issue a fina l pa rtne rship a dm inistra

t ive a djustm e nt (“ FPAA” ). 26 U.S.C . §§ 6223(a),

* * The Honora

ble C a thy Ann B e nc ive n go, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de signa t ion. 26229(a )(1). R e dda m pe rsona lly

signe d m ultiplec onse n ts, c olle c tive l y e xte nding the l im ita tions pe riod to June30, 2008. 26 U.S.C . § 6229(b)(1). TheIR S issue d
an FPAA to Pre s idio for Fora ke r on De c e m

be r 21, 2004, a fte r the initia l lim ita tions pe riod e xpire d but within the e xte nsion gra n te d by the c onse nts. R e dda m argue s, inte r alia , tha

t he re lie d on the a d

vic e of C arl Ha sting, the
m an who origina lly

sold theB LIPS inve stm e n t stra te gy to him , whe n he de c ide d to sign a n e xte nsion of thelim ita

tions pe riod, a

n d tha t be c a u se Ha s ting c am e unde r inve stiga tion by the IR S for his B LIPS involve m e nt, Ha sting ha d a c onflic t of inte re s t tha

t inva lida te d the c o nse nt R e d dam

signe d. T h e distric t c o urt gra nte d
sum m ary judgm e nt to the gove rnm e nt on the va lidity of the e xte nsions, a

n d R e dda m a ppe a le d
. R e dda m re lie s on Transpac

Drilling Venture

1982-12 v . C

omm’r , 147 F.3d 221 (2d C ir. 1998), for the proposition tha t an a d visor’ s c onflic t of inte re st inva lida t e s a taxpa y e r’ s own c onse nt to e xte nd a lim ita tions pe riod. Howe ve r, Transpac is e a sily distinguisha

ble be c a use it doe s not a d d

re ss a situa

tion in whic h
a taxpa y e r signe d a

c onse nt him se lf. Tw e nty -tw o Strate gic Inv e stme nt Funds, e t. al. v . C omm’r, __ F.3d__ (9th C ir. 2017). The e vide nc e in the re c ord de m onstra te s tha t Ha sting wa s not a dvising R e dda m whe n his powe r of a ttorne y signe d the first c o nse nt, but tha t Ha sting wa s
3a dvising Re dda m whe n R e dda m pe rsona lly

signe d the se c ond c onse nt; tha t Ha sting inform e d R e dda m of a possiblec onflic t of inte re st a nd R e dda m unde rstood a

nd
wa ive d the sa

m e ; a nd tha t R e dda m pe rsona lly

signe d five m o re e xte nsions a fte r te rm inating his re lationship with Ha sting. Although on sum m ary judgm e nt “ a ll justifia ble infe re nc e s a

re to be drawn in [ ] fa vor” of the non-m ova nt, Ande rson v . Libe rty Lobby , Inc ., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986), the fa c ts he re do not support the infe re n c e tha

t Ha sting’ s pote n t ia l c onflic t infe c te d e ve ry e xte nsion of the lim ita tions pe riod R e dda

m pe rsona lly

signe d. For this re a son, the distric t c ourt did not e rr in c onc luding tha

t the c onse nts R e dda

m signe d to e xte nd the lim ita

tions pe riod for issuing a

n FPAA we re not inva l idate d by C arl Ha sting’ s a l le ge d

c onflic t of inte re st. B e c a use R e dda

m va lidly c onse nte d to e xte nd the lim ita tions pe riod, the distric t c o urt prope rly

e nte re d sum

m ary judgm e nt. W e ne e d not, a n d do not, re a c h
any othe r issue urge d by

the pa rtie s .
AFFIRM E D.

4