- 20 -
instruments favors respondent. See Calumet Ind. v. Commissioner,
95 T.C. 257, 274 (1990).
Fourth, no terms were provided for repayment, and the sole
promissory note in evidence does not provide for an interest rate
or interest payments. HPD made repayments depending upon its cash
position and liquidity; however, the repayments never kept up with
the advances. “If the expectation of repayment depends solely on
the success of the borrower’s business, the transaction has the
appearance of a capital contribution.” Roth Steel Tube Co. v.
Commissioner, 800 F.2d 625, 631 (6th Cir. 1986), affg. T.C. Memo.
1985-58. Moreover, petitioner testified that he would not enforce
repayment of the advances, but instead HPD only had to repay the
advances when it could. Petitioners’ failure to demand repayment
and their continued lending of additional funds tend to refute the
existence of a valid debtor-creditor relationship. See, e.g.,
Boatner v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-379, affd. without
published opinion 164 F.3d 629 (9th Cir. 1998).
Petitioners seek to find comfort in the fact that a portion of
their advances was recorded as loans on the corporation’s books and
records. However, we are not convinced that this fact entitled
petitioners to enforce payment of principal or interest. Rather,
we believe the recordation was merely a bookkeeping entry of little
value without the support of other objective criteria. See Dixie
Dairies Corp. v. Commissioner, 74 T.C. at 495.
Finally, petitioners admit that HPD did not give any security
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011