Stephen D. Ruddel - Page 9

                                        - 9 -                                         
          from an examination of the facts surrounding the advances.  See             
          Goldstein v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1980-273.                             
               Petitioner has produced no meaningful evidence rebutting               
          respondent's determination.  First, there is no evidence that               
          Mr. Dunn or petitioner ever contemplated that petitioner would              
          loan Mr. Dunn money.  Rather, in 1987, Mr. Dunn forged                      
          petitioner's signature on checks drawn upon petitioner’s bank               
          account, and Mr. Dunn embezzled funds from petitioner's Charles             
          Schwab brokerage account.  Petitioner sued his bank and Charles             
          Schwab in 1988, settling the matter about a year later for                  
          $40,000. Petitioner also sued Mr. Dunn to recover the embezzled             
          amounts.  Petitioner received monthly restitution payments from             
          Mr. Dunn until 1989.                                                        
               Second, petitioner advanced Mr. Crowl $120,000 by checks               
          dated January 17, 1980.  Petitioner argues this advance was a               
          loan as evidenced by the fact that he wrote the word "loan" on              
          the memo line of the checks.  We are unpersuaded.  Petitioner's             
          writing the word "loan" on each check does not, in itself,                  
          establish that the advance was in fact a loan.  We find relevant            
          the fact that petitioner did not enter a written loan agreement             
          with Mr. Crowl, nor did he execute any promissory notes, maintain           
          a repayment schedule for the advances, or charge interest.  We              
          also find relevant that petitioner did not take other meaningful            
          steps to enforce this purported loan.  The record shows that                
          Mr. Crowl, at petitioner's direction, was to invest the $120,000            




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011