- 9 -
from an examination of the facts surrounding the advances. See
Goldstein v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1980-273.
Petitioner has produced no meaningful evidence rebutting
respondent's determination. First, there is no evidence that
Mr. Dunn or petitioner ever contemplated that petitioner would
loan Mr. Dunn money. Rather, in 1987, Mr. Dunn forged
petitioner's signature on checks drawn upon petitioner’s bank
account, and Mr. Dunn embezzled funds from petitioner's Charles
Schwab brokerage account. Petitioner sued his bank and Charles
Schwab in 1988, settling the matter about a year later for
$40,000. Petitioner also sued Mr. Dunn to recover the embezzled
amounts. Petitioner received monthly restitution payments from
Mr. Dunn until 1989.
Second, petitioner advanced Mr. Crowl $120,000 by checks
dated January 17, 1980. Petitioner argues this advance was a
loan as evidenced by the fact that he wrote the word "loan" on
the memo line of the checks. We are unpersuaded. Petitioner's
writing the word "loan" on each check does not, in itself,
establish that the advance was in fact a loan. We find relevant
the fact that petitioner did not enter a written loan agreement
with Mr. Crowl, nor did he execute any promissory notes, maintain
a repayment schedule for the advances, or charge interest. We
also find relevant that petitioner did not take other meaningful
steps to enforce this purported loan. The record shows that
Mr. Crowl, at petitioner's direction, was to invest the $120,000
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011