Group Administration Premium Services, Inc., et al. - Page 22

                                       - 22 -                                         

          January 1, 1988, or as of December 31, 1988, on its 1988 Schedule           
          L.  JJM showed no loans from stockholders as of January 1, 1988,            
          or as of December 31, 1988, on its 1988 Schedule L.  On the 1989            
          Schedule L, GAPS showed loans from stockholders of zero on                  
          January 1, 1989, and $8,281 as of December 31, 1989.  On the 1989           
          Schedule L, JJM showed loans from stockholders of $10,000 on                
          January 1, 1989, and $10,000 as of December 31, 1989.11  The                
          Schedule Ls do not evidence sufficient loans to cover the                   
          payments made by GAPS and JJM to and for petitioner.12                      

          11In the statutory notice, respondent generously reduced the                
          amounts of corporate payments by the amounts of the stockholder's           
          loans listed on GAPS's and JJM's 1989 pro forma corporate income            
          tax return schedule L.  Petitioners provided no substantiation              
          for these amounts beyond the pro forma returns.                             
          12John Pritten testified that petitioner's "loans" are                      
          reflected on the Schedules L under headings different from "Loans           
          from stockholders".  He testified that the headings "Mortgages,             
          notes, bonds payable in less than 1 year" and "Mortgages, notes,            
          bonds payable in 1 year or more" also reflect petitioner's                  
          "loans".  Although it is true that these headings list                      
          substantially more than the stockholder loans category and that             
          some of the amounts listed on the Schedules L equal the face                
          amounts of the promissory notes, we do not find this testimony              
          persuasive.  Each of the promissory notes has a 1-year maturity             
          date.  This contradicts the distinction between notes payable in            
          1 year or more and notes payable within less than 1 year.  For              
          example, GAPS note No. 6 for $31,637 is exactly the same amount             
          as the GAPS Schedule L entry under notes payable in less than 1             
          year for 12/31/88 although note No. 6 is payable in one year.               
          Also, neither Mr. Pritten nor petitioner provided a sufficient              
          business reason for separating any shareholder loans into the               
          three different categories.  We find it much more plausible that            
          Mr. Pritten and petitioner created the notes in preparation for             
          trial and had to rely on the other Schedule L categories for the            
          appropriate amounts because the amounts actually stated in the              
          shareholder loans category were not sufficient to cover the                 
          amounts of the loans claimed.                                               




Page:  Previous  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011