- 5 -
$13,342 reported income from L&L and the $20,896 in L&L checks
that petitioners deposited were loans.
Petitioners have scant evidence to support their
contentions. With respect to the $60,000 from LIC, petitioners
offered incomplete loan documents, including a copy of a check
from LIC payable to LCC and a promissory note in which payment
terms were left blank. Petitioners' documents are insufficient
to establish a bona fide loan. Petitioner testified that he did
not make any payments to LIC and that he did not provide any
security or collateral for the alleged loan. Petitioner, as an
owner and officer of the company, had control in the decision of
whether or not to enforce the alleged debt. He has failed to
prove that the distribution of $60,000 to him was not his share
of profits from LIC or compensation to him for services to LIC.
Petitioners offered only uncorroborated testimony with
respect to the L&L loans. Petitioner testified that the
president of L&L often asked petitioner for a "personal loan of
two, three hundred, four hundred dollars, and then I gave the
money to him, and when he paid me back, he made a check of L&L
Construction also on my name."
Petitioner's explanation for the amounts received from L&L
is not credible. The L&L checks that petitioner received were
dated at regular intervals throughout 1988. Some were clearly
payroll checks. Others, in the amounts of $500 or $1,000, were
marked "Professional services." Petitioner testified that he
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011