- 14 -
Fourthly, the promissory note on which petitioner relies
does not help petitioner’s case on this record. The note was for
$135,000--the $100,000 Parker paid for the Corporations plus the
$35,000 Parker paid for the Partnership Interests. The note
bears interest at 6 percent per year. The parties have
stipulated that, through September 25, 2003, petitioner’s
payments to Parker on the note aggregated $28,933.23. This is
approximately the amount of the required interest payments alone.
Thus, we cannot conclude from the parties’ stipulation or
anything else in the record to which our attention has been
directed, that petitioner has yet repaid any of the $100,000 that
Parker paid to him for the Corporations. Also, (1) petitioner’s
failure to repay Parker promptly in 2000, after the consent
order was entered and after petitioner was discharged from
bankruptcy, and (2) petitioner’s failure to repay Parker in the
3� years after he signed the promissory note, suggest that
petitioner did not in 1996 make any provisions for repayment. Of
course, “The best laid schemes o’ mice and men/Gang aft a-gley.”
Burns, “To a Mouse”, st. 7, in Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations 377
(17th ed. 2002). But if petitioner had in fact made any such
provisions, then we would expect to have heard from him what
those provisions were. O’Dwyer v. Commissioner, 266 F.2d at 584;
Stoumen v. Commissioner, 208 F.2d at 907; Wichita Terminal
Elevator Co. v. Commissioner, 6 T.C. at 1165.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011