-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