- 32 -
involved the application of commercially available herbicides,
such as Roundup and Princep, and commercially available
fertilizers such as Uran 32 and a 10-34-0 mixture applied with
varying levels of irrigation to the jojoba plants. Application
of these commercial products to a large-scale production endeavor
as was attempted on the land allocated to Utah I is merely
testing of the sort normally conducted as part of agricultural
operations. See sec. 1.174-2(a), Income Tax Regs. Evidence
presented at trial, including the testimony of both Kellen and
Pace, indicates that they interpreted the activities being
performed on Utah I's plantation as field testing or field
trials.
The record does not show that U.S. Agri's efforts on behalf
of Utah I would lead to patentable technology or even know-how.
Moreover, the record does not include proof that the partially
completed patent application prepared by U.S. Agri concerned work
performed as part of its R&D agreement with Utah I. We note that
none of the allegedly highly qualified individuals supposedly
employed by U.S. Agri to conduct the purported research and
experimentation on behalf of petitioner testified at trial.
Additionally, we note that no one from Agri Futures testified at
trial regarding the nature of the work performed by their
employees on Utah I's plantation. The record shows that this
case is another example of efforts by promoters and investors in
Page: Previous 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011