Laidlaw Transportation, Inc. and Subsidiaries - Page 82

                                        - 82 -                                        
          U.S. 521 (1946).  We disagree.  The Court of Appeals for the                
          Seventh Circuit held in Commissioner v. John Kelley Co., supra,             
          that the fact that the taxpayers did not exchange cash for                  
          debentures is a factor indicating that an advance is equity.  Id.           
          at 467.  However, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit              
          did not state that the converse is true; i.e., that if the                  
          recipient of funds received any cash, the transaction is a loan.            
          The fact that LIIBV transferred cash to petitioners is not                  
          convincing evidence that the advances were debt.                            
               This factor is neutral.                                                
               2.   Reasonable Expectation of Repayment                               
               A reasonable expectation of repayment by the provider of an            
          advance when the advance is made suggests that the advance is               
          debt.  Gilbert v. Commissioner, 248 F.2d 399, 406 (2d Cir. 1957),           
          remanding T.C. Memo. 1956-137; C.M. Gooch Lumber Sales Co. v.               
          Commissioner, supra at 656; Nestle Holdings, Inc. v.                        
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-441.  Petitioners contend that                
          LIIBV reasonably expected petitioners to repay all of the loans             
          based on their financial conditions.  We disagree.  LIIBV's                 
          directors did not expect to be repaid or intend to request                  
          repayment.                                                                  
               This factor suggests treating the LIIBV advances to                    
          petitioners as equity.                                                      
               3.   Absence of Conversion Rights                                      
               Petitioners point out that they had no right to convert the            
          creditor's loans to stock of the debtor, and contend that this              



Page:  Previous  65  66  67  68  69  70  71  72  73  74  75  76  77  78  79  80  81  82  83  84  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011