Jeffrey M. Guerrero and Genedine R. Guerrero - Page 6




                                        - 6 -                                         
          its shareholders.  Thus, while petitioners have introduced copies           
          of checks they wrote to Olympic, they have failed to establish              
          that those checks were considered or intended to be capital                 
          infusions or loans to Olympic.  The checks could represent                  
          repayments of loans from Olympic to petitioners or payments for             
          expenditures that Olympic made on behalf of petitioners.  Without           
          adequate explanation of the evidence by petitioners or their                
          return preparer, petitioners have not shown that the payments               
          were capital in nature or that they constituted loans.                      
               Furthermore, even assuming that the checks were evidence of            
          direct loans from petitioners, there is no evidence that the                
          loans were outstanding on December 31, 1992, or that the amounts            
          had not already been used in claiming 1990 or 1991 flowthrough              
          losses.  Petitioners’ 1991 tax returns indicate that their bases            
          at the end of 1991 were zero.  Therefore, as a threshold matter,            
          petitioners would have had to show that they made additional                
          direct contributions or loans to Olympic in 1992, and petitioners           
          have simply failed to do that.                                              
               Petitioners also argue that they pledged personal assets to            
          secure Olympic’s corporate debt.  Despite petitioners’ argument             
          to the contrary, their pledges of personal assets to secure                 
          Olympic’s debt might indicate that they were guarantors.                    
          However, even if petitioners were guarantors, Selfe v. United               
          States, 778 F.2d 769 (11th Cir. 1985), does not apply because               






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011