- 62 -
Property and the Arrowhead Lakes Subdivision lots.43 However,
the form of ownership of the Arrowhead Lakes Subdivision lots was
clearly a trust and not a partnership. Moreover, petitioner
stipulated that he was the 100-percent beneficiary of the
Arrowhead lots held in trust by Mr. Miles, and he does not
dispute, and in fact incorporates, respondent’s requested finding
of fact that “Petitioner owned Lots 26, 27 and 28 in OR-2 (a.k.a.
Arrowhead Lakes Subdivision), which were held in trust by R.
Stephen Miles, Jr., Trustee.” Petitioner is bound by the form of
ownership expressed in the stipulation and demonstrated by the
record, and he cannot now argue that the Arrowhead lots were in
fact held by a partnership. We agree with respondent’s
characterization that petitioner exchanged his 100-percent
interest in the Arrowhead Lakes Subdivision lots for Mr.
McLaughlin’s 50-percent interest in the Angel-Royse Property and
that there was no distribution of those properties from any
partnership.44 We also agree that petitioner and Mr. McLaughlin
43Mr. McLaughlin and petitioner testified that their
supposed partnership owned the Arrowhead Lakes Subdivision lots.
They testified that they were equal partners with respect to both
the Arrowhead Lakes Subdivision lots and the Angel-Royse
Property. Petitioner contends that the partnership was
terminated with the properties’ being distributed equally. He
claims that the properties exchanged were of equal value after
accounting for the environmental liabilities associated with the
Angel-Royse Property.
44This finding is supported by a letter from Mr. Miles to
Mr. McLaughlin’s attorney; he states:
(continued...)
Page: Previous 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011