Group Administration Premium Services, Inc., et al. - Page 21

                                       - 21 -                                         

          there is no evidence that any interest was ever paid.10  In                 
          addition, the rate of interest on the notes did not change,                 
          although quoted interest rates were changing during the 3-year              
          period when the notes purported to be outstanding.  This is not             
          evidence of normal business practice.                                       
               There are no source documents evidencing a loan.  Both                 
          petitioner and his accountant referred to internal accounting               
          records and work papers when asked how each of the 16 loan                  
          balances was calculated.  Petitioner never offered these internal           
          accounting documents into evidence.  Petitioner stated that these           
          records were available but that he would have to find them.                 
          Petitioners never produced them.                                            
               There are many inconsistencies between the categories and              
          amounts shown on the Schedules L that petitioner said reflected             
          the loan balances outstanding at yearend between him and the                
          corporations and the face amounts of the corporations' notes to             
          him.  The corporate Schedules L do not show significant loans               
          from stockholders.  GAPS showed no loans from stockholders as of            

          10GAPS claimed an interest deduction of $30,632 on its 1989                 
          pro forma tax return.  Respondent disallowed this entire amount,            
          and GAPS has conceded this issue.  Even if this interest was                
          paid, there is no evidence that it was paid to petitioner for               
          these purported loans.  Even if the interest was paid to                    
          petitioner for these purported loans, petitioners did not report            
          these payments as ordinary income.  If the deduction was based              
          upon an accrual of interest payable to petitioner, the deduction            
          would properly be disallowed under sec. 267(a)(2) by reason of              
          the relationship between petitioner and GAPS, as defined in sec.            
          267(b)(2).                                                                  




Page:  Previous  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011