- 36 -
(8) the corporation's attempts to enforce repayment; and
(9) the shareholder's intention or attempts to repay the
loan.
See Busch v. Commissioner, 728 F.2d 945, 948 (7th Cir. 1984),
affg. T.C. Memo. 1983-98; Dolese v. United States, 605 F.2d 1146,
1153 (10th Cir. 1979). No single factor is determinative.
Boecking v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-497. After considering
all of the facts and circumstances, we conclude that the
expenditures made by EIC on behalf of petitioner and Mrs. Wang
constitute constructive dividends to the Wangs.
Several factors support our conclusion. The Wangs have
unfettered control over EIC, with the authority to make decisions
concerning the timing and extent of payments made on their
behalf. See Epps v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-297. Despite
the growth in corporate earnings, EIC did not pay a dividend
during any of the years at issue, nor were any dividends dis-
closed in the financial statements for prior years. Nothing in
the record indicates that there were any restrictions on the
amount of money lent to the Wangs. See Crowley v. Commissioner,
962 F.2d 1077, 1081 (1st Cir. 1992), affg. T.C. Memo. 1990-636.
No loan documents, notes, or written instruments of indebtedness
were presented to the Court. Id. at 1082. Further, there were
no repayment schedules, maturity dates, or any indication that
the Wangs made interest payments to EIC in connection with the
Page: Previous 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011