- 9 -
must prove that at the time of each transfer, they
unconditionally intended to repay the amounts received and
Drachman unconditionally intended to require payment. Rule
142(a); Welch v. Helvering, supra.
Although petitioners assert that the shares of stock were
loans, a mere declaration by them that they intended the stock to
constitute a loan is insufficient if the transaction fails to
exhibit more reliable indicia of debt. See Williams v.
Commissioner, 627 F.2d 1032, 1034 (10th Cir. 1980), affg. T.C.
Memo. 1978-306; Alterman Foods, Inc. v. United States, 505 F.2d
873, 877 (5th Cir. 1974).
The determination of whether a transfer was made with a real
expectation of repayment and an intention to enforce the debt
depends on all the facts and circumstances including whether: (1)
There was a promissory note or other evidence of indebtedness,
(2) interest was charged, (3) there was security or collateral,
(4) there was a fixed maturity date, (5) a demand for repayment
was made, (6) any actual repayment was made, (7) the transferee
had the ability to repay, (8) any records maintained by the
transferor and/or the transferee reflected the transaction as a
loan, and (9) the manner in which the transaction was reported
for Federal tax purposes is consistent with a loan. See
Zimmerman v. United States, supra at 613; Estate of Maxwell v.
Commissioner, 98 T.C. 594, 604 (1992), affd. 3 F.3d 591 (2d Cir.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011