United States' Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of Plaintiffs'

was planning to acquire. Sanding alone, this differencebetween the BPB Transaction and those described in Notice 2000-44 defeats any reasonable c aim that the BPB Transactions aresubstantially similar to th transactions described in Notice200-44.It is possible to read the description in the noticedifferently. One could rea the first clause of the underscoredsentence in the block quote -- the clause instructing that"additional amounts contrib ted to the partnership" are to bedisregarded -- as qualifyin the entire rest of the sentence,rather than just the portio of the sentence ending with theparenthetical" ($1, OOOX in his example)." Were this correct,then the question whether B B's and Montgomery's economic outlayto acquire their interests n Bemont, and Bemont's value, were"nominal or zero" would be ade without considering anythingthey contributed to Bemont side from the offsetting options.In other words, the determi ation of whether Bemont' s value was"nominal or zero" would be ade without considering the millionsof dollars of Solution 6 st ck they contributed. Thisconstruction of the phrase s unsupportable, for at least tworeasons.First, suppose a taxpa er purchased and wrote call optionswith strike prices that wer only slightly different from oneanother, and then contribut d both options to a partnership, as- 18 -