- 46 -
services. Also, we cannot accept that he was performing those
services for free. Petitioner does not suggest that amounts he
received following the sales in 1986 and 1988 were, in fact,
compensation, and, indeed, petitioner claims those amounts were
loans. It is more plausible that petitioner’s performance of
services and his guarantee for the road construction arose from
his ownership interest in East Lake Vista.
Under petitioner’s argument, we must assume that any
services that petitioner performed were for the benefit of Dr.
Gant, the purported 100-percent owner of East Lake Vista. But,
Dr. Gant did not testify that petitioner performed services for
his benefit and that he compensated petitioner. Dr. Gant’s
testimony, as a whole, indicates that petitioner performed the
real estate services for a 50-percent interest in East Lake
Vista. Dr. Gant testified that he and petitioner started out 50-
50, with Dr. Gant putting up all the money30 and petitioner doing
all the work. However, according to an “agreement” with Mr.
Miles, ownership of the property was “posted as 100 percent on my
part since I put up the money”. Dr. Gant also testified:
Q Did you pay anything for the additional 50 percent
interest from Mr. Medlin?
30Dr. Gant testified that he gave petitioner $125,000 in
1984 for the purchase of East Lake Vista. This amount represents
the initial cash portion of the purchase price for the property.
Dr. Gant testified: “I didn’t pay any more. We paid it out of
operations at the time.”
Page: Previous 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011