- 8 -
failing to pay off the debt would have soured their relationship
with the Bank which held the mortgage on some of their real
estate projects. Petitioner and decedent presented no evidence
to support this claim other than petitioner's testimony to that
effect. Moreover, while petitioner and decedent contend that
forcing the bank to foreclose on its collateral, the Cessna
airplane, would have soured their relationship with the Bank, the
parties have stipulated that the debt was in fact fully paid with
the proceeds of the sale of the Cessna plane. Petitioner and
decedent presented no evidence that, had the Bank been forced to
foreclose on this debt, their real estate business would have
been adversely affected. There is no evidence to support
petitioner's and decedent's contention that the Bank would have
called all of petitioner's and decedent's outstanding loans if
the Bank had foreclosed on this loan.
Petitioners contend on brief that the size of their invest-
ment in International Mining is a factor tending to show that
their dominant motive in guaranteeing the debt was a business
one. Petitioners' reliance on Litwin v. United States, 983 F.2d
997 (10th Cir. 1993), and Kelson v. United States, 503 F.2d 1291
(10th Cir. 1974), to support their contention that the size of
petitioner's and decedent's investment is persuasive evidence of
petitioners' motive is misplaced. Petitioners assert that, where
the investment is relatively small, a dominant business motive is
more likely. Petitioners appear to arrive at this conclusion
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011