- 11 -
to make the payment to petitioner. They would have been
qualified to testify as to the corporation’s intent in making the
payment. Petitioner, however, did not call them as witnesses.
The preponderance of the evidence in the record supports
respondent’s position that the corporation lent petitioner
$50,000 during 1989. The memo line on the corporation’s check to
petitioner indicates that $40,000 of the $50,000 paid constituted
a loan. Although the memo line further denotes that $10,000
represented a gift, other evidence contradicts that notation and
nothing in the record explains the contradiction.8 On the same
day the corporation gave her the $50,000, petitioner executed a
note promising to pay it $50,000 on demand. In addition, the
corporation included the note as an asset valued at $50,000 on
its books and on the Schedule L it filed with its tax returns.
Furthermore, the notation on the reverse of the note implies that
the Pattersons considered petitioner to be indebted to the
corporation and that she would be required to adhere to the terms
specified on its face unless the Pattersons died before she paid
off the note. Other evidence in the record, including the
testimony of one of petitioner’s sisters and of Raymond A.
Hervert, the corporation’s attorney, is either neutral on this
issue or tends to support respondent’s position that the
8Neither party offered any evidence as to when the memo line
was completed or identifying the author of the memo entry.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011