Glenn and Marion Peterson - Page 12

                                                    - 12 -12                                                      

             cannot believe that Glenn Peterson would have signed a guarantee                                     
             for $300,000 to protect a nominal salary.  Garner v.                                                 
             Commissioner, 987 F.2d 267, 272-273 (5th Cir. 1993), affg. T.C.                                      
             Memo. 1991-569.  In this connection, we think it significant that                                    
             petitioners reported substantial amounts of "wages, salaries,                                        
             tips, etc." as ordinary income on their 1988 and 1989 returns.                                       
             This fact, coupled with the conceded nominal salary drawn from                                       
             Dutchess, points in the direction that Glenn Peterson's main                                         
             purpose was not to draw salary as an employee of Dutchess, but to                                    
             realize capital appreciation as a shareholder by way of the                                          
             hoped-for profitable operation of Dutchess.  Indeed, petitioners                                     
             recognize the multiple nature of Glenn Peterson's role when they                                     
             repeatedly refer on brief to his status as an                                                        
             "employee/officer/shareholder".                                                                      
                    In any event, under the foregoing circumstances, the record                                   
             is insufficient to satisfy petitioners' burden of proof that                                         
             protection of Glenn Peterson's employment status was the dominant                                    
             motive for financing the guarantee.  Eisenberg v. Commissioner,                                      
             supra at 349; Shinefeld v. Commissioner, supra at 1099.  We                                          
             conclude that Glenn Peterson signed the guarantee in his capacity                                    
             as a shareholder, and therefore, if the payment represented debt                                     
             instead of a contribution to capital, petitioners would have been                                    
             entitled to a nonbusiness bad debt deduction, which would have                                       
             given rise to a short-term capital loss, subject to the                                              





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011