Raymond R. Weigel - Page 13

                                       - 13 -                                         
          Code.  Secs. 301(c)(1), 316(a); Dolese v. United States, supra at           
          1152.  During the tax years at issue, Goshorn reported earnings             
          between $867,000 and $990,000.  The disbursements to petitioner             
          were never greater than Goshorn's retained earnings.                        
               Goshorn never declared a dividend for any of the years that            
          petitioner owned and operated it.  These factors militate against           
          a finding of a bona fide loan.  Crowley v. Commissioner, supra at           
          1085.                                                                       
          d.  The use of customary loan documentation                                 
               Petitioner did not execute any notes to Goshorn reflecting             
          his obligation to repay these amounts.  Additionally, Goshorn was           
          never provided a security interest against any of petitioner's              
          property.  Customary loan documentation is not a prerequisite to            
          a bona fide loan, but "its absence unquestionably is relevant to            
          the parties' intent."  Id. at 1082.  The absence of loan                    
          documentation leaves the taxpayer "with one less string to strum            
          for the factfinder."  Id.                                                   
          e.  The ability of the shareholder to repay                                 
               "Whether the shareholder, at the time of the disbursement,             
          has a realistic ability to repay it is a factor which sheds light           
          on his intentions."  Baird v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1982-220.            
               Petitioner testified that the sums in question were intended           
          to be fully repaid through the sale of either lot 1 or lot 2 of             
          the Eudora property.  Petitioner testified that, in 1991 or 1992,           
          he received an offer to purchase lot 2 of the Eudora property for           




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011