- 30 -
however, we must carefully scrutinize the transactions. Haber v.
Commissioner, 52 T.C. 255, 266 (1969), affd. per curiam 422 F.2d
198 (5th Cir. 1970).
In determining whether the shareholder and the corporation
each possessed the requisite intent at the time of the advances,
the courts have examined a number of factors, including the
following: The existence of a fixed time and plan for repayment;
whether a ceiling was placed on advances; whether there was
accrual and payment of interest; whether the loans were recorded
on the corporate books; if there has been a failure to repay a
mounting loan balance; who had control over the decision to
enforce the obligation; whether debt instruments were executed;
the existence of earnings and profits; whether dividends were
paid; whether there is corroborated, credible testimony of the
taxpayer; the salary received by the shareholder; and the
shareholder's ability to repay. See, e.g., Berthold v.
Commissioner, supra at 121; Wiese v. Commissioner, supra at 923;
Baird v. Commissioner, 25 T.C. 387 (1955); Baird v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1982-220.
Because of the nature of this issue, the above factors are
not exclusive, and no one factor is determinative. The factors
merely represent objective evidence helpful to the courts in
analyzing all of the relevant facts and circumstances.
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011