Mehdi H. Hajiyani - Page 23




                                       - 22 -                                         
               Unsecured Swift Loan                                                   
               Petitioner became a judgment lien creditor of the Swifts in            
          1993 as a result of their failure to pay notes made in 1991.  The           
          next relevant event for which we have any evidence is that in               
          1996 the Swifts filed a petition in bankruptcy.  There are no               
          other identifiable events that can be considered to fix the                 
          worthlessness of the Swift notes in 1992, 1993, or 1994.                    
               Personal Loans                                                         
               The Wooton and Rawoof loans were made to friends of                    
          petitioner.  In June of 1991 the Wootons gave petitioner a check            
          that was subsequently dishonored on an unspecified date.  The               
          Rawoof loan was discharged in bankruptcy in 1994.  There is no              
          evidence that the Wooton loan became worthless during the years             
          at issue.  There is evidence that the Rawoof loan became                    
          worthless in 1994.                                                          
               Petitioner, however, has not shown that the dominant, as               
          opposed to merely a significant, motivation for either loan was             
          business related.  See United States v. Generes, 405 U.S. 93, 106           
          (1972).  Self-serving  statements alone will not suffice to prove           
          a taxpayer's business purpose in advancing money.  Id.                      
               The record in this case is not sufficient for the Court to             
          find that petitioner is entitled to a deduction with respect to             
          his loans other than as allowed by respondent on Schedules D for            
          the years under consideration.  Because petitioner has failed to            







Page:  Previous  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011