- 58 -
D. The Mixon Factors
1. The Name Given to the Certificates Evidencing the
Advances
The name given to the certificates evidencing the advances
suggests whether advances are debt or equity. Estate of Mixon v.
United States, supra at 402-403. The labels on the documents
evidencing the advances at issue say that they are debt.
However, an attempt to characterize a transaction by its labels
may not be well taken in light of the facts and circumstances of
the case. Id. at 404. Labels cannot change equity to debt.
Gregory v. Helvering, supra; Estate of Mixon v. United States,
supra.
This factor favors treating the LIIBV advances to
petitioners as debt but, as stated at par. II-C, above, we give
less weight here to the form than to the substance of the
transaction.
2. The Presence or Absence of a Fixed Maturity Date
The presence of a fixed maturity date can indicate that an
advance was debt. Estate of Mixon v. United States, supra at
404-405. However, the right to enforce maturity dates may be
meaningless if the parties do not expect the recipient to repay.
Foresun, Inc. v. Commissioner, 41 T.C. 706, 717 (1964), affd. in
part, modified in part and remanded 348 F.2d 1006, 1009 (6th Cir.
1965); see Slappey Drive Indus. Park v. United States, 561 F.2d
at 583 & n.18; Harlan v. United States, 409 F.2d 904, 907 n.4
Page: Previous 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011