- 6 -
were made, petitioner was aware that he might never receive
additional payment from HIEI for his services in excess of the
"loan" payments.
Petitioners submitted a purported copy of HIEI's minutes
from a corporate meeting stated to have been held in October
1991. Petitioners also submitted a letter from HIEI's treasurer,
Thomas A. Rohde, and a copy of the promissory note allegedly
executed by petitioner. These three documents were submitted by
petitioners to support their contention that the distributions
were loans.
We decline to admit the letter from HIEI's corporate
treasurer into evidence on the basis of hearsay. Fed. R. Evid.
801(c). We do, however, admit the promissory note but find that
it carries little or no weight. The note was executed after the
close of the taxable year 1992 and offers little as far as
demonstrating petitioner's intent at the time the distributions
were made.
As for the corporate minutes, even if we were to admit the
document under the business record hearsay exception found in
rule 803(6) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, we do not find that
the document is helpful to petitioners' case. The minutes
reflect that petitioner agreed to forgo his monthly salary of
$4,000. While the distributions did not exactly match the amount
of his salary forgone, we note that petitioner's monthly salary
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011