Opinion ID: 835263
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Accused's Representation of Investors and Investor Partnerships

Text: The accused's association with Hoyt's enterprise began in 1994 when he was retained by the investor partnerships to represent a number of the individual investors in test cases against IRS personnel asserting that they had violated the investors' constitutional rights. [5] When the accused undertook that representation, he thought that the Hoyt organization was a legitimate for-profit operation. See Bales v. Commissioner, 58 TCM (CCH) 431, 445 (1989) (tax court concluded that Hoyt business was a quality operation). Shortly thereafter, the accused undertook representation of investor partnerships to challenge the disallowance of deductions by the IRS in a number of administrative proceedings. [6] And, in 1995, the accused represented one of the investor partnerships in a federal court test case, again challenging the IRS disallowance of deductions. In all those instances, the accused represented individual investors or investor partnerships, usually in litigation, for specific limited purposes. The accused never served as personal or general business counsel for Hoyt or any of his entities; Hoyt retained other counsel to perform those roles.