- 31 -
indicative of an equity advance.” Estate of Mixon v. United
States, 464 F.2d 394, 404 (5th Cir. 1972); see also sec.
385(b)(1); Am. Offshore, Inc. v. Commissioner, supra at 602.
Evidence that a creditor did not intend to enforce payment or was
indifferent as to the exact time the advance was to be repaid
belies an arm’s-length debtor-creditor relationship. See
generally Gooding Amusement Co. v. Commissioner, supra at 418-
421.
Petitioner acknowledges that there was no fixed date for
G�nther’s repayment of petitioner’s advances but argues that the
history of repayment before FYE May 31, 1991, demonstrates that a
fixed repayment schedule was unnecessary. Petitioner also
contends, but did not prove, that all members of the consolidated
group used the intercompany account in the same manner, and,
thus, this factor should not favor equity.
The record in this case establishes that the intercompany
account was an open account with a running balance and no fixed
date for repayment. While Flint and its subsidiaries may have
used the account in a similar fashion, any similarity in usage
does not change the fact that petitioner did not prove there was
any deadline for repayment of balances owed among the companies.
This factor favors respondent’s position.
Page: Previous 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011