- 22 -
ing the date on which each such note was signed, the record does
not establish whether petitioner made such a demand for repayment
during that three-year period. The record does establish, and we
have found as a fact, that petitioner made no demand for repay-
ment of the principal balance of each such note on its due date
(viz., September 14, 1985, in the case of the September 1982 note
and October 4, 1985, in the case of the October 1982 note) or at
anytime thereafter. Stephen did not offer to repay the principal
balance of the September 1982 note on or after its due date. The
record does not establish whether Robert made an offer to repay
the principal balance of the October 1982 note on its due date.
Petitioner did not discuss with either of her sons the possibil-
ity of extending the due date of each of the notes in question.
Based on our review of the entire record before us, we find
that on the respective dates on which Stephen signed the Septem-
ber 1982 note and Robert signed the October 1982 note petitioner
did not expect them to carry out their respective obligations
stated in those notes. In addition, although neither Stephen nor
Robert carried out those obligations, petitioner did not insti-
tute legal proceedings or take any other steps to enforce repay-
ment of those notes. See, e.g., Rude v. Commissioner, 48 T.C. at
173.
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011