Loretta Jean Randolph - Page 11




                                       - 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