Utah Jojoba I Research, William G. Kellen, Tax Matters Partner - Page 36

                                        - 36 -                                         

          States, 929 F.2d at 1021; see also Higgins v. Commissioner, 312              
          U.S. 212, 218 (1941).  Kellen testified that he did not even read            
          the private placement memorandum for Utah I until preparing for              
          the trial of this case.  Utah I's role was only to serve as a                
          vehicle for the injection of risk capital into U.S. Agri's jojoba            
          farming operation.  Utah I was a passive investor in a farming               
          venture.                                                                     
               Utah I's actions following the execution of the R&D                     
          agreement were ministerial only.  As general partner, Kellen was             
          not active in pursuing the affairs of Utah I.  CFS and Pace                  
          identified the investors for Utah I.  Kellen testified that CFS              
          prepared the private placement memorandum and all related                    
          documents for Utah I.  Kellen simply signed all of the documents             
          placed before him without any analysis or independent evaluation.            
          Kellen did not regularly relay U.S. Agri's quarterly progress                
          reports, in the form of correspondence from Pace, to Utah I's                
          limited partners.  Kellen never met with the limited partners and            
          made no effort to enforce the obligations of the limited partners            
          who defaulted on their promissory notes.  Although Kellen claims             
          to have "frequently" visited Utah I's plantation, the actual                 
          number of times he visited the plantation was never established.             
          Additionally, under both the original R&D agreement and the                  
          amended research plan, as well as the licensing agreement, U.S.              
          Agri enjoyed complete discretion and control over any research               





Page:  Previous  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011