- -21
Respondent contends that the purchase agreement merely
evidenced that petitioner contemplated selling his interest in
the property at some future time, while petitioner contends that
the purchase agreement was a valid contract of sale of the
property.
If in fact, as recited in the purchase agreement, the
partnership assets included the Third Street property, the
question becomes whether the purchase agreement transferred
petitioner's interest in that partnership property. Certainly
the facts here are not totally clear in this respect, but from
the record as a whole we conclude that in December 1985 the Third
Street property was an asset of the law partnership. The
purchase agreement so stated as did the agreement between Mr.
Carter and the law partnership, whereby Mr. Carter bought a 25-
percent interest in the law partnership. In fact, if the law
partnership did not own the Third Street building, it
misrepresented its assets to Mr. Carter. Both petitioner and Mr.
Moosbrugger testified that the Third Street property was owned by
the law partnership from the time of its purchase throughout the
years here in issue except when it was used by the law practice
corporation. We will not discuss in detail all the conflicting
evidence. However, viewing the evidence as a whole, we conclude
that the Third Street property was an asset of the partnership.
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011