- 26 -
have been reasonable for him to make multimillion dollar
guarantees to protect a $250,000 cash investment. Also, he
argues that his salary from his auto dealership matched his out-
of-pocket contributions. This contention misconstrues
petitioner's stake in the auto dealership. Focusing on the
second $400,000 component of the $806,000, the cap loan,
petitioner contends that he did not individually borrow that
amount from Sanwa Bank. The record, however, reflects that on
July 9, 1986, Sanwa Bank notified petitioner that he was approved
for the cap loan. In that letter, petitioner is denominated
"borrower" and the auto dealership "guarantor". Also, in the
March 2, 1987, business loan agreement, petitioner is again shown
as the borrower. Sanwa Bank's corporate resolution confirming
the parties' intentions regarding the cap loan also shows
petitioner as borrower.
The two guaranty extension documents reflect Sanwa Bank's
intention to hold petitioner personally liable for the cap loan.
Although one of the documents shows petitioner as guarantor, the
sequence of events and documents demonstrate that the original
guaranty was in error, and, in due time, was corrected. We also
note that petitioner deposited the proceeds of the cap loan in
his personal bank account and disbursed from that account the
moneys to the auto dealership, thereby exercising dominion and
control over the loan proceeds.
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011