- 17 -
sioner, 55 T.C. 172, 201 (1970)), affd. without published opinion
786 F.2d 1174 (9th Cir. 1986). That presumption may be rebutted
by an affirmative showing that at the time of the transfer the
transferor had a real expectation of repayment and an intention
to enforce the debt. Estate of Van Anda v. Commissioner, supra
at 1162. The mere promise to pay a sum of money in the future
accompanied by an implied understanding that such promise will
not be enforced is not afforded significance for Federal tax
purposes, is not deemed to have value, and does not represent
adequate and full consideration in money or money's worth. See
Estate of Maxwell v. Commissioner, supra at 604-605; Estate of
Musgrove v. United States, 33 Fed. Cl. 657, 664 (1995).
The determination of whether a transfer was made with a real
expectation of repayment and an intention to enforce the debt
depends on all the facts and circumstances, including whether:
(1) There was a promissory note or other evidence of indebted-
ness, (2) interest was charged, (3) there was any security or
collateral, (4) there was a fixed maturity date, (5) a demand for
repayment was made, (6) any actual repayment was made, (7) the
transferee had the ability to repay, (8) any records maintained
by the transferor and/or the transferee reflected the transaction
as a loan, and (9) the manner in which the transaction was re-
ported for Federal tax purposes is consistent with a loan. See
Zimmerman v. United States, 318 F.2d 611, 613 (9th Cir. 1963);
Montgomery v. United States, 87 Ct. Cl. 218, 229, 23 F. Supp.
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011