Billie and Florence Lykins - Page 13

          percent partnership interest in J & M to petitioner.  The record            
          does not explain why Mr. Templeman and Mr. Adkins entered the               
          August 27, 1984, agreement without petitioner; however, the                 
          testimony of petitioner and Mr. Templeman at trial indicates that           
          a transfer of Mr. Adkins' partnership interest to petitioner was            
          contemplated by all three parties.  We have no reason to doubt              
          their testimony.  Moreover, we are satisfied that one significant           
          reason that the August 27, 1984, agreement was not amended                  
          earlier was because of Mr. Adkins' medical condition and his                
          unavailability due to his serious condition.                                
               Respondent points out that on August 30, 1984, petitioner              
          was employed by Coal Mack.  This fact does not alter our                    
          analysis.  A taxpayer can be engaged in more than one trade or              
          business at the same time.  Syracuse v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.            
          1981-340.  Moreover, the only reason petitioner remained employed           
          by Coal Mack after August 30, 1984, was because Coal Mack had not           
          yet hired his successor.                                                    
               For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that petitioner was             
          in the trade or business of leasing equipment at the time that he           
          made the loan to Tag Coal.                                                  
               Respondent also contends that petitioner's motivation for              
          making the loan did not have a proximate relationship to                    
          petitioner's trade or business of leasing equipment.  In this               
          regard, respondent argues that petitioner's dominant motivation             
          in making the loan was to relieve Mrs. Lykins' son, Mr.                     

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011