- 23 -
The record contains no persuasive evidence on the order of
priority of petitioner's debts to Kenilworth vis-a-vis the
latter's other creditors. We note, however, that petitioner did
receive the lion's share of the proceeds from Kenilworth's sale
of its real estate following the Crash, which suggests that
petitioner held a claim to repayment that was greater than
Kenilworth's other creditors and to that of its shareholders.
This factor is neutral, and we give it no weight.
vii. Intent of the parties
We analyze all 11 factors to decipher petitioner's and
Kenilworth's true intent concerning whether the advances are debt
or equity. Hardman v. United States, 827 F.2d at 1413. Although
their objective expression of intent is important, we do not
consider it to be the most important factor and do not give it
special weight. A. R. Lantz Co. v. United States, 424 F.2d at
1333. We view petitioner and Kenilworth's objective expression
of intent as merely one factor to consider in passing on whether
they actually intended that the advances be debt. Id.
Petitioner's witnesses testified unequivocally that the
advances were meant to be loans. We found their testimony to be
credible and persuasive, and we do not believe that the lack of a
promissory note or other formal indicia of debt deprives their
testimony of probative value under the facts herein.5 Hardman v.
5 We also find no merit in respondent's allegation that
(continued...)
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011