- 12 -
Petitioners advance a number of contentions to support their
position that during the year at issue Mr. Enyart received only
the right to use the B&L equipment, including the following:
(1) The B&L equipment was subject to “virtually 100% financing”
at the time it was transferred to Mr. Enyart; (2) the agreement
states “that Petitioners shall have use of such [B&L] equipment
until the financed amounts have been paid by B&L”; (3) B&L “was
in a dire financial position and its ability to pay off the
substantial amount of debt encumbering the equipment was in grave
question”; and (4) “there was a realistic possibility that B&L
would be unable to make the payments without the bank actually
taking repossession of the equipment leaving petitioners without
the equipment that was transferred pursuant to the agreement.”
The record does not support the foregoing contentions of peti-
tioners.
The agreement states that at the time the B&L equipment was
transferred to Mr. Enyart it was subject to some unspecified
amount of liens; it does not state, as petitioners contend, that
that equipment was subject to “virtually 100% financing”.
Furthermore, contrary to petitioners’ contention, the agreement
provides that only if the lending institutions holding the liens
to which the B&L equipment was subject objected to the transfer
by B&L of that equipment (or any part thereof) to Mr. Enyart, so
that such a transfer by B&L could not be effected, was Mr. Enyart
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011