D. Sam Scheele - Page 11

                                                    - 11 -11                                                      
             elimination of any personal injury claims in the Biomass lawsuit                                     
             (or otherwise) as being in consideration for the benefits to be                                      
             received by petitioner (or Weisel).  The option agreement                                            
             provides for agreement to be reached as to strategy and approach                                     
             to the Biomass lawsuit, but that provision is insufficient to                                        
             convince us that any of the 7.5-percent payment to Weisel was in                                     
             consideration for petitioner's giving up any claims.  Weisel gave                                    
             up a greater portion of his partnership interest than did                                            
             petitioner and may have received the 7.5-percent payment in                                          
             consideration therefor.  Even if we grant that, because of the                                       
             Weisel-petitioner sharing agreement, petitioner had a one-half                                       
             interest in the 7.5-percent payment, petitioner has failed to                                        
             convince us that the 7.5-percent payment was received in                                             
             consideration for anything other than the partnership interests                                      
             and other items of consideration set forth in the option                                             
             agreement.  We take the pertinent agreements at face value and                                       
             accord little weight to petitioner's uncorroborated and self-                                        
             serving testimony.  See Tokarski v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 74, 77                                     
             (1986).  In addition, we draw a negative inference from                                              
             petitioner's failure to present the testimony of any other party                                     
             to the transactions.  Wichita Terminal Elevator Co. v.                                               
             Commissioner, 6 T.C. 1158, 1165 (1946), affd. 162 F.2d 513 (10th                                     
             Cir. 1947).  In sum, petitioner has failed to convince us that                                       

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

Last modified: May 25, 2011