- 30 -
conclude, therefore, that because petitioner has failed to prove
that any of the payments charged to the intercompany account were
guaranty payments, for purposes of our analysis under section 166
we must evaluate all of the advances constituting G�nther’s
intercompany account balance as of the years the advances were
paid and recorded in the intercompany account.
2. Applying the Factors
We proceed to examine the advances under the traditional
multifactor approach. Cf. Hayutin v. Commissioner, 508 F.2d 462,
472-474 (10th Cir. 1974), affg. T.C. Memo. 1972-127.
Respondent’s determination as to whether a shareholder’s advance
is debt or equity is presumed to be correct. Gooding Amusement
Co. v. Commissioner, 23 T.C. 408, 421 (1954), affd. 236 F.2d 159
(6th Cir. 1956).
a. Name Given to Certificate
The advances in question were not memorialized by any
promissory note or other documentation characterizing the
advances as debt. Consequently, both parties agree that this
factor is not relevant to our analysis.
b. Presence or Absence of Fixed Maturity Date
“The presence of a fixed maturity date indicates a fixed
obligation to repay, a characteristic of a debt obligation. The
absence of the same on the other hand would indicate that
repayment was in some way tied to the fortunes of the business,
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011