United States' Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of Plaintiffs'

and indicates that, thereafter, the partnership "may engage ininvestment acti vi ties" apparently as a form of window-dressing.In the BPB Transaction, the partners contributed millions ofdollars of publicly traded stock to the partnership. Followingthe contribution the partnership's value was not nominal orzero.The IRS and Treasury have repeatedly asserted that the saleor at least principal purpose of the transactions described inNotice 2000-44 is tax avoidance. The principal purpose of BPBand Bemont was to pursue a legitimate investment opportunity.In my opinion, both of these differences between Notice2000-44 and the BPB Transactions are significant. These factualdifferences between the BPB Transactions and those described inNotice 2000-44 undermine any claim that they are substantiallysimilar.Respectfully submitted,C;1~ f!~,'_........,.".....-._-.......~..._-~-.t~-"'.. "...,~............~...___.__m_._..____Ethan Y~.le_çj-i 1'2~~£Date- 27 -