- 14 - compliance with the terms of the Capital Note, it is reasonable to conclude that the Capital Note's only significance was to serve as a makeweight against the potential of recognition of gain under section 357(c). We accordingly find that petitioners did not intend to pay the Capital Note according to its terms, and that therefore no genuine indebtedness was created. It is noteworthy in this connection that the December 21, 1989, NAC Corporation board of directors' minutes makes no reference to any corporate acceptance of the Capital Note as assistance in the rectification of the twin problems of net worth and capital-to-premium ratio deficiencies. Rather, insofar as any corporate purpose is reflected by the minutes, the sole function of the Capital Note was to offset the difference between the "allocated liability and the basis" of the Clinton Way Property; i.e., to aid NAC Corporation's sole shareholder-- petitioners--in the avoidance of the recognition of gain under section 357(c)(1). Petitioners suggest on brief (although they do not press the point very vigorously) that even if their liability under the Capital Note is not taken into consideration, their continuing liability under both the Standard Insurance and Bunn & Duran obligations avoids the requirement that they recognize gain under section 357(c)(1). This position, however, is inconsistent withPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011