- 6 -
fide debt or equity. This is a factual determination, and
petitioner bears the burden of proof. Rule 142(a).
Petitioner has not established that the 1990, 1991, and 1992
advances were made in exchange for Speedmart's bona fide
indebtedness. A bankruptcy attorney advised petitioner that
capital contributions would violate the Bankruptcy Court's
orders. Petitioner contends that he followed this advice and
made the advances "in the form of unsecured notes". We, of
course, are not bound by the form of petitioner's transaction.
See, e.g., Gregory v. Helvering, 293 U.S. 465, 469 (1935).
Petitioner did not produce any notes or other documents
evidencing loans for which he claimed deductions in 1990, 1991,
and 1992. He did introduce the 1991 Note, but it does not
specifically reference any particular advances. Even if we were
to assume that the 1991 Note was meant to evidence transfers made
during the years in issue, petitioner did not establish, or even
assert, that he had demanded repayment and that Speedmart had
refused. In addition, Speedmart did not make interest payments
in accordance with the terms of the 1991 Note. Petitioner has
conceded that his advances were unsecured and that Speedmart was
inadequately capitalized.
After considering the factors relevant to this case, see
Dixie Dairies Corp. v. Commissioner, 74 T.C. 476, 493 (1980), and
cases cited therein, we conclude that petitioner has failed to
carry his burden of proving that he advanced funds in exchange
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011