- 16 -
condemnation were used "practically every time we talked to him."
Several witnesses who were members of the LRA and the LCC during
the period in question also credibly testified that the threats
were authorized and that there was considerable animosity between
(1) the LRA and Mr. Johnson and (2) the LCC and Mr. Johnson.
Respondent argues that respondent's inability to find any
witness to refute the testimony concerning oral threats of
condemnation of the 23d Street property by Lancaster city
officials does not mean the threats occurred or if they occurred
that they were genuine. This argument is unsupported by the
facts of this case.
Respondent also argues that the chance of condemnation by
Lancaster was remote. We have been unwilling to find a threat
where it should have appeared to the taxpayer that the chance of
condemnation was remote. Rainier Cos. v. Commissioner, supra at
76; Warner v. Commissioner, supra at 1137.
Respondent argues that the LCC and the LRA failed to comply
with California law and did not take the steps necessary to
condemn the 23d Street property.
Several witnesses who were members of the LRA and the LCC
during the period in question credibly testified that both the
LCC and the LRA were prepared to proceed to the next step in the
condemnation protocol if a negotiated sale was not consummated.
We do not believe that Lancaster's decision to forgo beginning
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011