- 9 -
from language in Litwin stating that a court is more likely to
find a nonbusiness loan where the taxpayer's investment is
relatively large, the taxpayer's salary is relatively small, and
the taxpayer's other sources of income are relatively large.
Litwin v. United States, supra at 1000. It does not follow that
a small investment is more likely to be made in a taxpayer's
trade or business. The court in Litwin, referring to a situation
where three factors existed, (1) a large investment, (2) a small
salary, and (3) large alternative sources of income, concluded
that, in that instance, a nonbusiness motive is more likely. The
court did not say that, independent of all other factors, size of
investment alone will be determinative. Furthermore, even should
we accept petitioners' statement as true, petitioners have put
forth no evidence as to the value of the four parcels of land
that petitioner and decedent contributed to International, and,
thus, we do not know the size of their investment.
In order to determine a taxpayer's dominant motivation, it
is often helpful to determine how the taxpayer would have
benefited if the loan had not gone bad. When the creditor or
guarantor of a corporate debt is a shareholder/investor and also
an employee, mixed motives for the loan or guaranty are often
present, and the critical issue becomes which motive is dominant.
Id. at 1000. In the case at bar, petitioners would have bene-
fited in that the value of their stock in International Mining
would have gone up or dividends could have been paid to them.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011