Loretta Jean Randolph - Page 9




                                        - 9 -                                         
          to make repayment and an intent on the part of the person                   
          advancing the funds to require repayment.  See Fisher v.                    
          Commissioner, 54 T.C. 905, 909-910 (1970); Mercil v.                        
          Commissioner, 24 T.C. 1150 (1955).  We look to both testimony and           
          objective facts to ascertain intent.  See Busch v. Commissioner,            
          728 F.2d 945, 948 (7th Cir. 1984), affg. T.C. Memo. 1983-98;                
          Commissioner v. Makransky, 321 F.2d 598, 600 (3d Cir. 1963),                
          affg. 36 T.C. 446 (1961).  Testimony is not determinative,                  
          particularly where it is contradicted by the objective evidence.            
          See Busch v. Commissioner, supra; Glimco v. Commissioner, 397               
          F.2d 537, 540-541 (7th Cir. 1968), affg. T.C. Memo. 1967-119.               
               In the family context, a transfer of money may be a gift or            
          a loan.  See Hughes v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-438.                   
          Furthermore, in the case of a bona fide loan, a gift may                    
          subsequently result should the loan be forgiven.  See id.                   
               In the instant case, the $50,000 payment to petitioner came            
          from the corporation and not directly from the Pattersons.                  
          Generally, a distribution by a corporation to a shareholder out             
          of accumulated earnings and profits may constitute a dividend               
          taxable to the shareholder as ordinary income.  See secs. 301,              
          316; Commissioner v. Gordon, 391 U.S. 83, 88-89 (1968); Hardin v.           
          United States, 461 F.2d 865, 872 (5th Cir. 1972).  A formal                 
          dividend declaration is not required for a corporate distribution           
          to constitute a dividend.  See Sachs v. Commissioner, 277 F.2d              






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011