- 9 -
functioned only as an investor, id. at 687, and denied the
taxpayers the deduction under section 174(a):
LaSala's "royalty" interest in the development and
commercialization of the four inventions was analogous
to that of an investor in securities. After the
transactions of December 24, 1979, LaSala had no
ownership interest in the inventions and no control
over their actual development, production, or
marketing. * * *
Id. at 689.
The factual situation in Green is similar to that of
petitioners'. In both, a limited partnership rather than the
taxpayers themselves was in charge of conducting the research and
development. The Court in Green analyzed the agreements between
LaSala and NPDC to determine whether LaSala was actually
controlling the research and development. That analysis is
impossible here, because petitioners have not submitted any
substantive information on RCC and how it plans to develop the
recyclable plastic containers. Lacking such evidence here, we
cannot find that petitioner or RCC was actively involved in a
trade or business involving the development or manufacture of
recyclable plastic containers. Nor can we find that petitioner
or RCC had a realistic prospect of entering into a trade or
business with regard to the products that were to be developed by
RCC. See Snow v. Commissioner, 416 U.S. 500, 503-504 (1974);
Kantor v. Commissioner, supra at 1518. Based on the record, we
cannot say that petitioner was any more than an investor in RCC.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011