- 20 -
A I didn't have any knowledge or
understanding of that. I was just relying
on the advice of my CPA.
Petitioner testified on cross-examination as follows:
Q Did the notes state that you had to pay
-- that you had to make payments quarterly?
A I don't recollect.
We also note that neither of the other trustees testified
at trial. Unlike the TAM, in this case we have no basis
to find that the parties to the loans, consisting of
petitioner and the other two trustees, on the one hand,
and petitioner as borrower, on the other hand, intended to
renew, renegotiate, modify, or extend the terms of the
loans after 1986.
Petitioners also cite three State court cases for the
proposition that the plan's "failure to enforce its rights
over a three or four year period" constituted a "revision
or modification of the [notes]" under State law. In
effect, petitioners argue that State law controls our
determination of whether the subject loans were renewed,
renegotiated, modified, or extended after the effective
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011