United States' Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of Plaintiffs'

3. failure to treat the short financial position as aliabili ty; and4. large tax losses upon disposition of the partnershipinterest. (Id. )As an initial matter, this transaction did not involve a" (1) arge tax loss () upon disposition of the partnershipinterest" (Dubinsky at 30), the fourth item in Dubinsky's list.Hence, for Dubinsky's "substantially similar" assertion to beconvincing, it would have to be based on the first three itemsin his list.The first three items on Dubins ky' s list are apparentlynecessary for a transaction to be classified as substantiallysimilar to the transaction described in Notice 2000-44, butstanding alone they are not sufficient. One variation oftransaction described in Coordinated Issue Paper - DistressedAsset/Debt Tax Shelters, LMSB-04-0407-031 (April 18, 2007)involves a taxpayer who purchases and sells economicallyoffsetting option positions and contributes the offsettingposi tions to a partnership. The taxpayer takes the positionthat outside basis is increased for the long option, and notreduced for the short option on the theory that it is not aliabili ty. (Id. at note 4.) In other words, the transactionincl udes each of the first three items on Dubinsky's list.- 22 -