- 4 - Petitioner did not consult an attorney or any independent expert in the area of agriculture or jojoba plants regarding whether jojoba oil or any other jojoba derivative had a potentially lucrative commercial market. Petitioner, nevertheless, invested in Utah I. On his 1982 Federal income tax return, petitioner reported wages of $168,000 from his medical practice, interest income of $33,124, taxable dividend income of $6,934, and capital gains of $6,659. Petitioner reported total net losses of $116,187 from various partnerships and a parcel of rental real estate, of which $20,919 represented the loss from Utah I. Thus, petitioner reported total income of $103,830 and a total tax liability of $26,438. Utah I was audited by the Internal Revenue Service and a Notice of Final Partnership Administrative Adjustment was issued to the partnership. The partnership initiated a TEFRA proceeding in this Court and a decision was entered in Utah Jojoba I Research v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-6. In the decided case, this Court held that the partnership did not directly or indirectly engage in research or experimentation and that the partnership lacked a realistic prospect of entering into a trade or business. In upholding respondent's disallowance of research and experimental expenditures, the Court found that the agreements between the partnership and the proposed research andPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011