I hope that's true, Alan, but since Penguin 2.0 came out, I've read a few case studies that claimed that sites that had transferred link equity via 301s -- both by building churn and burn sites, waiting until they're hit for having spammy link profiles and then redirecting them to another site, and by buying up expired domains and redirecting them -- had been hit.
The idea here (and I don't know if it's true, because I've never built spammy links ) is that the situation used to be that a domain could be penalized under the original version of Penguin for having an untrustworthy link profile, but that penalty didn't pass on to another site if you redirected the link equity from the penalized site to it, and that Penguin 2.0 changed that.
I'm not trying to spread unfounded rumors, but it does make sense to me that Google might make an effort to stop a site from gaining credit from links it didn't earn itself, whether those links are editorial or spam. If I didn't build a company and its site, then why should I get credit for the votes other people chose to give to that site simply by taking over ownership of the domain name? After all, in the real world, taking over a domain isn't the same thing as buying a company and folding it into another.
Similarly, why shouldn't I be penalized for trying to benefit from the dishonest tactics that were used to promote a site if I've chosen to buy that domain and redirect its traffic to mine? Couldn't Google conclude that that's my primary reason (maybe my only reason) for doing this?