- 517 - "Nonrecourse Installment" promissory note in favor of O.P.M. Therefore, Cedilla Invest. had no recourse liability for the debt. See Rose v. Commissioner, supra. Moreover, the note contained a provision for deferral and set-off of payments to O.P.M. by Cedilla Invest. to the extent of and for the amount of rent that was not paid by O.P.M. This deferral extended to January 1, 1986. There was little likelihood Cedilla Invest. would be called upon to satisfy this obligation. The agreement with O.P.M. included a substitution agreement permitting O.P.M. to substitute and exchange certain equipment for that currently being leased. This indicates a retention by the lessee of control over the property. This fact negates any claim that IRA obtained ownership of the property. The sham nature of the transaction is shown by the manner in which it was purportedly negotiated. Schott was asked to be a director of IRA, yet knew little, if anything, about its operations. She executed documents on behalf of Cedilla Invest. without knowing who prepared the documents or the purpose for them. Schott did not have an equity interest in the company, despite the fact that IRA's records indicated at one time that she was an owner thereof. Mallin executed a document on behalf of Cedilla Invest. as a director after he had been asked to become a director by Kanter. Mallin received a commission forPage: Previous 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011