- 8 -
officers or any salaries or wages paid. Petitioner testified
that he was not an employee of MACS but that he was chairman of
its board of directors. At trial, when petitioner was asked if
he received a salary from MACS, he testified that he received a
salary in the form of rent paid by MACS for use of a warehouse he
owned.5 Under the circumstances, we hold that petitioner was not
an employee of MACS.
Even if petitioner were an employee of MACS, he has not
shown that the loans were "necessary to keep his job or [were]
otherwise proximately related to maintaining his trade or
business as an employee." Whipple v. Commissioner, supra at 204.
Moreover, we believe that petitioner's dominant motive for making
the loans was to protect his investment. See United States v.
Generes, supra at 103 ("We conclude that in determining whether a
bad debt has a 'proximate' relation to the taxpayer's trade or
business, as the Regulations specify, and thus qualifies as a
business bad debt, the proper measure is that of dominant
motivation, and that only significant motivation is not
sufficient.").
On the record before us, we hold that petitioners have
failed to present sufficient evidence to establish that they are
5 Petitioner did not show what the rent was, or that he was in
the business of leasing the warehouse to MACS, much less that the
dominant reason for the loan was to protect any such business.
Cf. Commissioner v. Moffat, 373 F.2d 844 (3d Cir. 1967), affg.
T.C. Memo. 1965-183.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011