- 462 -
don't recall whether this exact year or when. The property
was in deep trouble. However, I thought because we had a
position with respect to this note, that there might be some
recovery. My judgment was based--as to value was based on
information that I received from the people running the
property, as to what they thought might be the recovery in
the event of a foreclosure sale, or might be earned within a
period of time, and it clearly was my judgment it was worth
no more than that, and that was the price at which it was
sold.
The Court: Now, you don't have any documentary
evidence about bankruptcy or inability of these people to
pay their debts?
[Kanter]: Ultimately the property did get foreclosed.
I don't have any handy, and I don't have extensive
cumulation of documents, because there was no filing that
would offer an opportunity for reorganization. But it was
foreclosed in the end.
Essentially, Kanter is asking the Court to credit his testimony,
accept his judgment as to the note's asserted fair market value,
and hold the note's "sale" to MAF was a bona fide transaction.
We decline to do so in view of Kanter's unreliable testimony and
other credible evidence of record indicating that a number of
Kanter's transactions with MAF were not bona fide transactions.
It appears to us that documentary evidence should have been and
could have been provided by Kanter to corroborate his testimony
in this regard. Thus, we conclude that Kanter failed to meet his
burden of proving that the Victorian Village note transaction was
bona fide. We also conclude that Kanter failed to show that MAF
was not a related party under section 267(b)(2) and (c).
Although Kanter testified that he had no interest in MAF's parent
company, Computer Placement Services, he offered no evidence
Page: Previous 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011