- 26 -
characterized even by Cabintaxi Corp. as startup operations. In
effect Shrike Cars was searching for a manufacturer who would
play a key role in developing, fabricating, testing, producing,
and selling one of Shrike Cars’ concept vehicles. But in 1998,
that manufacturer had not been found and a concept vehicle
commercially attractive to a manufacturer had not yet been
identified.
Lamont v. United States, supra, and Blitzer v. United
States, supra, are similarly distinguishable. As in the
Cabintaxi Corp. situation, the entities in both of those cases
had committed to a specific product or project and taken
substantial and formal steps with respect thereto. The
corporation in Lamont v. United States, 80 AFTR 2d at 97-7321 to
97-7322, 97-2 USTC at 90,423-90,424, had been formed to develop
language translation software, received a copyright on its system
in February of the year in issue, had programmers and third-party
consultants actively working to revise the system throughout that
year, and even made an unsolicited sale of the system before
yearend.
Blitzer v. United States, 684 F.2d at 877-878, involved a
partnership formed to develop and operate a subsidized housing
project through a program administered by the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Although initial steps in
the project were taken during 1971, the court found the critical
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011