- 50 -
or collateral, Zimmerman v. United States, 318 F.2d 611, 613 (9th
Cir. 1963); (d) whether there is a written loan agreement, Road
Materials, Inc. v. Commissioner, 407 F.2d 1121, 1123 (4th Cir.
1969), affg. T.C. Memo. 1967-187; (e) whether the parties'
records, if any, treat the transaction as a loan, id. at 1124-
1125; and (f) whether the borrower has made any repayments,
Estate of Ames v. Commissioner, a Memorandum Opinion of this
Court dated Feb. 7, 1946. The first four of these factors favor
respondent because there is no evidence that petitioner or Resyn
had a note, loan agreement, or any other written instrument of
indebtedness, or agreed to any rate of interest or a repayment
schedule, or provided security. Finally, there is no evidence
that Resyn sought payments from petitioner.
Petitioners argue that petitioner repaid the loans by
forgoing salary and by making repayments. Petitioners contend
that these repayments are recorded in Resyn's books. However,
Resyn's books showing repayments are not in evidence. There is
no evidence that petitioner forfeited any salary to make loan
repayments in excess of amounts taken into account by respondent.
Petitioners argue that the amounts that Resyn paid for their
personal benefit are loans because Resyn's records treat them as
a loan receivable. We disagree. This factor alone is not
sufficient to show that those payments are loans. Road
Materials, Inc. v. Commissioner, supra at 1124; Calumet Indus.,
Inc. v. Commissioner, supra at 288; Baird v. Commissioner, 25
Page: Previous 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011