- 566 -
artificially losses from IFI to IRA by mere bookkeeping entries.
As further discussed below, if the notes were worthless at the
time they were acquired by IRA, IRA could not have suffered a
loss by selling the notes because it did not part with anything
of value.
The CMB Cinema Trust and CMB Cinema Trust II were trusts for
the benefit of Ballard's family and the RWL Cinema Trust and RWL
Cinema Trust II were trusts for the benefit of Lisle's family.
IRA and/or IFI did not pay or transfer moneys to the CMB Cinema
Trust, CMB Cinema Trust II, RWL Cinema Trust and RWL Cinema Trust
II as loans but rather as part of the moneys earned by Ballard
and Lisle for their roles in the Prudential income scheme and,
therefore, the funds were not intended to be repaid. The alleged
notes receivable or debts did not in fact exist, and IRA did not
establish its basis in the alleged notes receivable.
With respect to the claimed losses on the sales of the other
alleged notes receivable, IRA presented no evidence that IRA, as
opposed to Administration Co., paid or advanced moneys as loans
to the alleged debtors. IRA presented no evidence as to why the
funds were advanced to the alleged debtors. Except for a
notation as to the interest rate for some of the alleged loans
listed in its Loans Receivable ledger, IRA presented no evidence
regarding the terms of the alleged loans such as the due dates or
interest rates. IRA presented no evidence that the loans were
Page: Previous 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011