-122-
avoidance. See Bail Bonds by Marvin Nelson, Inc. v.
Commissioner, 820 F.2d 1543, 1549 (9th Cir. 1987), affg. T.C.
Memo. 1986-23.
Petitioner contends that both the banks and the Ackerman
group had legitimate, nontax reasons for CDR, Generale Bank, and
CLIS to become partners. More particularly, petitioner claims
that the banks were interested in partnering with Messrs. Lerner
and Ackerman in a “film distribution” business based in the U.S.
Petitioner claims that the 65 film rights that the banks
contributed to SMHC were valuable assets and were contributed to
SMHC as a viable “starter” library for a larger library that the
Ackerman group envisioned. Petitioner contends that he and Mr.
Ackerman assumed that the banks wanted to continue this
relationship into the future and were surprised when the banks
exercised their put rights and departed SMP about 3 weeks after
purporting to become partners.
1. Banks’ Purposes
At the outset, we note the dearth of direct evidence as to
the banks’ purposes in entering into the transactions with the
Ackerman group. In asserting that the banks were interested in
partnering with Messrs. Lerner and Ackerman in a U.S.-based film
distribution business, petitioner relies exclusively on his own
Page: Previous 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011