- 127 -
assist Mr. Jee, in 1985 he allowed him to encumber NMSC's proper-
ty with a $5,000,000 second deed of trust. This indicates to us
that the relationship between petitioner and Mr. Jee was such
that his consent could probably have been obtained had it been
requested. We have found nothing in the record before us to
suggest that Radcliffe and BOT could not have encumbered the
assets of the respective partnerships in which they held a major-
ity interest had they desired to do so.
Based on our review of the entire record in these cases,
petitioner has failed to persuade us that the Bank transactions
took the form they did because of the need of Radcliffe and of
BOT to obtain the consent of Mr. Jee before the respective assets
of NMSC and 300 Montgomery Associates could be encumbered.
We have found on the instant record that petitioner has not
established that the Bank transactions took the form they did
because of any nontax, business purpose of Radcliffe and BOT that
petitioner alleges on brief.94
93(...continued)
Mr. Jee's remaining interest in NMSC, which it did in March 1986.
94 Petitioner also contends on brief, relying in part on his
testimony, that (1) he did not have the resources to finance the
acquisition by Radcliffe and by BOT of their interests in NMSC
and 300 Montgomery Associates, respectively; (2) the proceeds of
the loans by the U.S. banks in question to Radcliffe and to BOT
were used for those purposes; and (3) Radcliffe and BOT expected
to make a profit on those acquisitions. Assuming arguendo we
were satisfied that the record in these cases established those
reasons, they would merely provide an overall justification for
the decision of Radcliffe and of BOT to borrow money. They would
(continued...)
Page: Previous 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011