Karl T. and Kathleen S. Harvey - Page 5




                                        - 5 -                                          
          their constructive dividends in the form of forgone interest for             
          1992, 1993, and 1994 are $8,310.81, $5,912.55, and $164.72,                  
          respectively.  Respondent argues that the Oregon law cited by                
          petitioners is irrelevant to the application of section 7872.                
               The Oregon statute of limitation relied upon by petitioners             
          generally requires that actions upon a contract or liability must            
          be commenced within 6 years.  Or. Rev. Stat. sec. 12.080 (1997).             
          However, petitioners stated in their petition to the Court that              
          the loans were substantially repaid as of April 14, 1997, several            
          years after the loans allegedly became "unenforceable" under                 
          Oregon law.  In addition, KHTC listed all of the outstanding                 
          advances as loans to stockholders on the Schedules L (balance                
          sheets) of its Federal income tax returns.  We conclude from this            
          record that petitioners treated all of the loans as valid debt               
          during the taxable years in issue.  Moreover, we agree with                  
          respondent's position that State law does not control whether                
          these outstanding loans are subject to section 7872.  Morgan v.              
          Commissioner, 309 U.S. 78, 80 (1940); Burnet v. Harmel, 287 U.S.             
          103, 110 (1932); see also Estate of Arbury v. Commissioner, 93               
          T.C. 136, 148 (1989) where State usury laws did not limit the                
          fair market interest rate to an amount less than the federal                 
          statutory rate.                                                              
               We have considered petitioners' other arguments with respect            
          to respondent's determinations of their constructive dividends in            






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011