- 14 - With respect to respondent's contention that the 1991 interest payment is not investment interest because the 1985 stock and real property transfer constituted repayment of the 1982 plan loan, the parties to the 1991 settlement (viz., respon- dent, the Hickman corporation profit-sharing plan, and petition- ers) agreed in that settlement that the 1982 plan loan had an "outstanding loan balance" and that that loan, which the IRS determined was a prohibited transaction, was to be corrected "through repayment of the outstanding loan balance, principal plus interest". On the record before us, we shall not allow respondent to abandon the agreement reflected in the 1991 settle- ment that there was an outstanding loan balance during 1991 with respect to the 1982 plan loan and that the principal of that loan, plus interest, was paid by petitioner on October 4, 1991. Consequently, we reject respondent's argument that the 1985 stock and real property transfer constituted repayment of the 1982 plan loan. We now address respondent's contention that, assuming arguendo that the Court were to determine that the 1982 plan loan was not repaid during 1985 by the 1985 stock and real property transfer, the 1991 interest payment is not investment interest because petitioners have failed to show that the $130,000 of proceeds from that loan are traceable to an investment expendi- ture from June 4, 1982, when the 1982 plan loan was made, throughPage: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011