- 11 -
Petitioner’s assertion that he abandoned his interest also
is not supported by the evidence. There is no dispute that
petitioner left the employment of Union Machine in 1998.
Nonetheless, petitioner was aware that he still had an ownership
interest in Union Machine. Indeed, petitioner listed in his
bankruptcy filing in July 1999 that he owned an interest in Union
Machine. The bankruptcy estate, however, abandoned petitioner’s
shareholder interest in Union Machine, and, therefore, title to
the shares reverted to petitioner. See 11 U.S.C. sec. 541
(2000); Brown v. O’Keefe, 300 U.S. 598, 602 (1937); Mason v.
Commissioner, 646 F.2d 1309, 1310 (9th Cir. 1980), affg. 68 T.C.
163 (1977). Even assuming that petitioner initially thought such
interest passed to the bankruptcy estate, petitioner was aware by
the time of his discharge in November 1999 that the bankruptcy
court did not administer his ownership interest in Union Machine
as part of the bankruptcy estate.
Although petitioner has not been involved in the active
conduct of any of Union Machine’s corporate matters, including
annual shareholder meetings, since September 1998, petitioner did
not present any evidence, other than his own testimony, to refute
the fact that he remained a shareholder of record. Indeed, Union
Machine issued Schedules K-1 for the taxable years 1999 and 2000
reporting that petitioner was a 49-percent shareholder in Union
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011