- 13 -
(compensation received for future services included in gross
income in year compensation received). Petitioner does not
quarrel with that result, but insists that the $30,000 payment
was a loan, “secured by a lien on petitioner’s 1994 income, which
income was ultimately reduced by netting out the loan.”
Respondent argues that petitioner has failed to prove that the
$30,000 payment was received as a loan.
In order to be a bona fide loan, petitioner must demonstrate
that a debtor-creditor relationship was created from the outset
and that the payment constituted an enforceable obligation to
repay the $30,000. See Beaver v. Commissioner, 55 T.C. 85, 91
(1970); McCormack v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1987-11. This
relationship "is a question of fact to be determined upon a
consideration of all the evidence." Beaver v. Commissioner,
supra at 91. We have looked at whether there were notes of
indebtedness or whether the parties agreed to an interest rate
for the loan in determining if the parties did in fact have the
intent to establish a debtor-creditor relationship. See
McCormack v. Commissioner, supra. We have also stated, "An
intent to satisfy or repay ‘loans’ from future earnings of a
corporation or by rendering services in the future does not
satisfy the requirement for a valid debt, i.e., an unconditional
obligation to repay." Nix v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1982-330
(citing Beaver). Rather, such advance payments "constituted
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011