- 15 -
capital. Petitioner never formally demanded repayment. Despite
engaging in a restructuring of the Action note, he advocated no
similar measure for his note. National also did not appear to
treat the contribution as a debt inasmuch as no payment of
principal or interest ever occurred, it did not request a
deferment, and it effectively subordinated the note to the Action
note. Cf. Dallas Rupe & Son v. Commissioner, 20 T.C. 363, 369-
370 (1953) ("here a debt was owed to petitioners by the symphony
and was definitely so recognized by all parties concerned."). In
any event, National's books or tax returns are not in evidence to
prove it viewed the advance otherwise.
The only indication that National ever regarded petitioner
as a creditor came at a shareholders' meeting after the consent
judgment had been entered against it in early 1994. At that
time, the shareholders voted to satisfy petitioner's claim by
awarding him stock in National's subsidiary corporations.
However, this does not necessarily evince National's intent at
the time the advance was made. Furthermore, the fact that
petitioner won a judgment in State court for the amount of
principal plus interest owing on the note does not dictate that
the advance must be deemed a loan for Federal tax purposes. See
Road Materials, Inc. v. Commissioner, 407 F.2d 1121, 1124 n.3
(4th Cir. 1969), ("It does not follow * * * that an advancement
qualifying as a debt under state law must be treated as a debt
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011