Mann Construction Co., Inc. - Page 16




                                       - 16 -                                         

          obligated--to repay the full amount of the advances.  As a                  
          result, we also conclude that Mark Mann's obligation to repay               
          petitioner's advances was not "contingent" in the sense asserted            
          by respondent; it was a valid and enforceable obligation for                
          purposes of the bad debt deduction.                                         
               B.  Did Petitioner and Mark Mann Create a Debtor-Creditor              
               Relationship with Respect to The Advances?                             
               Although the advances were not "contingent" in the sense               
          asserted by respondent, this does not necessarily mean they were            
          bona fide debt.  Petitioner must also prove that Mark Mann and              
          petitioner created a debtor-creditor relationship with respect to           
          the advances.  See supra p. 9.                                              
               Whether a bona fide debtor-creditor relationship exists                
          depends on all the facts and circumstances, and generally no one            
          fact is determinative.  An essential question is whether there is           
          a good-faith intent on the part of the recipient of the funds to            
          make repayment, and a good-faith intent on the part of the person           
          advancing the funds to enforce repayment.  In determining whether           
          such intent exists, we consider all the evidence, and we evaluate           
          whether there was a reasonable expectation of repayment in light            
          of the economic realities of the situation.  See Fisher v.                  
          Commissioner, 54 T.C. 905, 909-910 (1970); G.M. Gooch Lumber                
          Sales Co. v. Commissioner, 49 T.C. 649, 656 (1968), remanded                








Page:  Previous  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011