- 8 -
of the estate were aware of and consented to the distributions at
the times they were made. In order for a distribution of estate
funds to be a loan, there must be evidence of a "consensual
recognition, express or implied, of an obligation to repay".
James v. United States, supra at 219; Katz v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1990-533 (attorney's withdrawal of funds from an estate he
represented were includable in his gross income despite
promissory notes executed by him payable to the estate).
Petitioner has the burden of proving the facts that would
support his claim and of overcoming the presumption of
correctness of respondent's determination. Rule 142(a); Welch v.
Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933). In the present case, this
burden requires petitioner to prove that the beneficiaries of the
estate not only were aware of his withdrawals of estate funds,
but also consented to them. Because petitioner has stipulated
that the beneficiaries had no knowledge of his withdrawals--a
lack of knowledge corroborated by the testimony of Mr. Putman and
the two daughters who attended the trial--he cannot carry this
burden.
Petitioner mishandled Mrs. Putman's estate from its
inception. He lied to the Putmans about the administration of
the estate, and when the estate would be closed, while he was
secretly misappropriating and spending most of their inheritance
for his own personal benefit. Petitioner took advantage of what
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011