- 15 -
corporation would pay off the loan, the extent to which the loan
proceeds were used to acquire capital assets for the corporation,
whether the corporation was thinly capitalized, and the intent of
representatives of the corporation and of the shareholder. See
Selfe v. United States, 778 F.2d 769, 773 n.9 (11th Cir. 1985);
In re Lane, 742 F.2d 1311, 1314-1315 (11th Cir. 1984); Georgia-
Pac. Corp. v. Commissioner, 63 T.C. 790, 796-800 (1975); Atkinson
v. Commissioner, supra.
No single factor is controlling, and each case is to be
decided upon its own facts. Plantation Patterns, Inc. v.
Commissioner, 462 F.2d 712, 719 (5th Cir. 1972), affg. T.C. Memo.
1970-182; Georgia-Pac. Corp. v. Commissioner, supra at 796; Blum
v. Commissioner, 59 T.C. 436, 440 (1972).
We agree with respondent in this case. The evidence is
compelling that the overdraft amount should be treated as a loan
made from Citibank Tokyo to Nihon Intergraph and not as a loan
made to Intergraph. Intergraph is to be regarded as a mere
guarantor, and its payment of �823,943,385 on December 23, 1987,
is to be regarded as a payment of Intergraph's obligation as
guarantor under the Guaranty Agreement. Accordingly, the foreign
currency loss and the interest expense deductions claimed by
Intergraph with regard thereto are disallowed.
The Overdraft Agreement created an unconditional debt
obligation on the part of Nihon Intergraph to pay off the
overdraft amount. Intergraph was not even mentioned in the
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011