- 423 -
business to exploit the results of the research and
experimentation undertaken by Newport.
Respondent has the burden of proof on this issue.
Respondent points out that the identical 1979 IRC research and
development and business expense issues were previously presented
to and decided by this Court in Estate of Cook and contends that
the Court's reasoning and conclusions in that case are equally
applicable here.
Kanter, on the other hand, contends that the issues are
purely factual, and that the following distinctions from Estate
of Cook are present in the instant cases: (1) Respondent, not
Kanter, bears the burden of proof; (2) Kanter's testimony was
entered in evidence here, unlike in Estate of Cook; and (3) the
Court's conclusions here with respect to IRC should not be based
upon certain "irrelevant" facts concerning ARC and BRC, as Kanter
implies happened in Estate of Cook. Kanter maintains that almost
all of the facts concerning ARC and BRC that were discussed in
the Estate of Cook opinion are irrelevant here because (1) he was
not a shareholder of either ARC or BRC, and (2) all events
relating to ARC and BRC occurred after 1979. In particular, he
asserts that much of the documentation cited and relied upon by
respondent in respondent's proposed findings of fact is not
actually in evidence in the instant cases, in light of the
Page: Previous 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011