- 17 -
Commissioner v. Riss, 374 F.2d 161, 167 (8th Cir. 1967), affg. in
part, revg. in part and remanding on another ground T.C. Memo.
1964-190.
Mr. Shedd testified that J&J lent the money to TLC in order
to create a business with which it could share costs of
forwarding freight. While this would be a valid business
purpose, the Shedds have presented no documentary or
corroborating evidence of any savings over the 4-year period
funds were advanced. In this regard, petitioners contend that
requiring corroborating documentary evidence of the savings
effectively increases the level of their burden of proof from a
preponderance to “beyond a reasonable doubt”. Petitioners have
confused the level of their burden with the need to provide
particulars or details of the savings. Petitioners have merely
made the uncorroborated statement that there either could have
been or were savings. They have not, however, explained how
those savings would or did occur. Petitioners have not presented
sufficient documentary evidence or testimony explaining the
business purpose for the advances. It has not been shown that
the Shedds were acting in J&J’s business interests when funds
were advanced to TLC. Instead, it appears that Mr. Shedd was
acting in his own best interests as sole shareholder of TLC when
he caused the injection of additional capital into TLC, an
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011