- 66 -
associated group to compartmentalize our information
between one partnership and another, but rather it was
to the benefit of all the parties, Jojoba Development
parties, Hyder Jojoba, Inc., Hyder Jojoba Partners,
which were the entities then in existence, to apply
whatever knowledge we discovered to the benefit of all
of the parties and move forward as a leading and
profitable jojoba production company.
Q: So specifically with respect to JDP, did you
expect the discoveries would be beneficial to JDP?
A: Absolutely.
Q: And how would it be beneficial specifically to
JDP?
A: How would improving the - - it would be
beneficial - -
Q: In other words, how would the discoveries be
beneficial to JDP?
A: Assuming that we had discovered that a
specific amount or regime of nutrient application could
increase yield by a certain amount, that would not only
benefit JDP specifically with regard to its operation
under a joint venture, but would also benefit JDP,
which is a 60-acre partnership and not a self-
sustaining unit, but rather a group related to Hyder
Jojoba, Inc. and all of its farm production, by
contribution towards the development of an economically
viable unit company/corporation that could produce
jojoba effectively and profitably.
The record shows that HJI did not serve solely as JDP's
agent. JDP had no power to direct or control any aspect of the
research or experimentation process. Berberich's activities were
solely ministerial. There is no evidence that JDP, Berberich, or
any limited partner, was involved in, directed, or controlled any
phase of the alleged research or experimentation project. Cf.
Everett v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1990-65, (citing Diamond v.
Page: Previous 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011