- 69 -
had been genuinely concerned about the pretax profit potential,
they would have carefully reviewed the over lease agreement to
ensure that the residual lease periods were properly defined.
Petitioner’s lack of interest or concern is inconsistent
with a genuine pretax profit motive for entering into the second
lease strip deal. Other than self-serving testimony, petitioner
offered no preinvolvement documents reflecting the value of the
lease transaction rights. Notwithstanding petitioner’s claimed
pretax profit motive, it did not hold the over lease position for
very long. Petitioner caused CMACM to dispose of its position to
Okoma and Lexington in a series of three transactions from
November 27, 1995, through September 1, 1997. In the
consummation of the three transactions, Crispin and petitioner’s
personnel failed a second time to discover the fact that there
was no over lease term. We note that Crispin, as CMACM’s
president, personally executed each assignment and assumption
agreement by which CMACM disposed of a portion of its over lease
position to either Okoma or Lexington.
On or about March 25, 1996, when CMACM and Jenrich agreed to
offset CMACM’s over lease rental payment liability and Jenrich’s
installment note liability against one another, petitioner and
its personnel on a third occasion failed to discover the overlap
of the lease terms.
Page: Previous 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011