- 59 -
(5th Cir. 1969). Postponing maturity dates for prolonged periods
suggests that the nominal lender does not intend to require
repayment and that the transfers are equity. Slappey Drive
Indus. Park v. United States, supra; Harlan v. United States,
supra; Foresun, Inc. v. Commissioner, supra.
Most of the agreements had fixed maturity dates.20 However,
LIIBV's directors did not intend to request repayment. LIIBV
continually extended and never enforced loan maturity dates.
The fixed maturity dates in the documents appear to be
window dressing to make the form of the transaction look like
debt. We give more weight to the substance of the transactions
than to the fact that the documents provided for fixed maturity
dates. Tyler v. Tomlinson, supra at 850. We are not bound by
the language of an agreement if it is at odds with the substance
of the transaction. Frank Lyon Co. v. United States, 435 U.S.
561, 573 (1978); Tyler v. Tomlinson, supra at 849. The Laidlaw
entities, including LIIBV and petitioners, adhered to the form of
the contracts by postponing maturity dates, but did not adhere to
the maturity dates in substance.
The initial loan agreements with LIIBV provided for a fixed
maturity date of September 1, 1988. The "as of" September 1,
1986, agreements changed the fixed maturity date to payment on
demand. Provision for payment on demand without a fixed maturity
20 Some agreements were demand loans with no maturity dates.
Page: Previous 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011