Victor I. Rosenberg and Deborah I. Rosenberg - Page 19




                                       - 19 -                                         
               12. Increased Management Participation                                 
               If making an advance increases an individual’s right to                
          participate in the management of the entity which received it,              
          then that person may be participating as a shareholder rather               
          than as a creditor.  See Estate of Mixon v. United States, supra            
          at 406; United States v. Henderson, supra.  Mrs. Rosenberg                  
          participated in Cabana Boy’s management because petitioners owned           
          63 percent of the stock.  This factor is neutral.                           
               13. Advances Proportionate to Stock Ownership                          
               If advances by shareholders are proportionate to their stock           
          ownership, an equity contribution is indicated.  See Estate of              
          Mixon v. United States, supra at 409; American Offshore, Inc. v.            
          Commissioner, supra at 604.  Petitioners owned 63 percent of the            
          stock and provided all of the advances.  Thus, while petitioners            
          were the controlling shareholders, the advances were not                    
          proportionate.  This factor is neutral.                                     
               14. Right To Enforce Repayment                                         
               A taxpayer’s right to enforce repayment of an advance                  
          suggests that the advance is a loan.  See Estate of Mixon v.                
          United States, supra at 405; American Offshore, Inc. v.                     
          Commissioner, supra at 603.  There is no evidence that                      
          petitioners had any right to enforce repayment of the claimed               
          advances.  Petitioners contend that they had a right to enforce             
          repayment because Dr. Rosenberg could call the loans on demand.             






Page:  Previous  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011