- 49 -
Barber for that year that Delaware Corporation is not entitled to
deduct.
Ms. Barber recorded the Mitchums Creek deed and Mr. Barber
commenced litigation against her in the Middlesex Circuit Court
before he entered into the 1993 global agreement and the Mitchums
Creek contract with Delaware Corporation. Mr. Barber commenced
that litigation against Ms. Barber in order to assert his inter-
est in the Mitchums Creek property, and not to protect any
interest Delaware Corporation might have had in that property.
Moreover, the Middlesex Circuit Court did not award any interest
in the Mitchums Creek property to Delaware Corporation. Instead,
that court ordered a rescission of the deed conveying Mr. Bar-
ber’s interest in that property to Ms. Barber and a so-called
equitable distribution of the Mitchums Creek property to both Mr.
Barber and Ms. Barber.
On the record before us, we find that petitioners have
failed to carry their burden of establishing that the legal fees
that Mr. Barber incurred in connection with the litigation with
respect to the Mitchums Creek property did not become his obliga-
tion to pay as the relevant legal services were rendered. On
that record, we further find that petitioners have failed to
carry their burden of establishing that during 1994 Mr. Barber
intended to reimburse Delaware Corporation for its payments of
the legal fees with respect to the Mitchums Creek property. On
Page: Previous 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011