- 19 - the bank to make the loans, were not a sufficient condition. For the bank to deviate from its loan policy and make the loans, it had to appear to the bank that the enterprise of the corporation was going to be successful. At the time the loans were made, the bank believed that the corporation had the potential to make repayment. Thin capitalization and the use of debt proceeds to acquire essential assets are factors to be considered in the debt-equity analysis. Alone, or together, however, they are not necessarily determinative that the corporation had no capacity to raise funds by borrowing. See, e.g., Fin Hay Realty Co. v. United States, 398 F.2d 694, 697 (3d Cir. 1968). Neither is it necessarily true that guaranteed indebtedness signifies an equity investment. See, e.g., Santa Anita Consol., Inc. v. Commissioner, supra at 553. By reducing the lender’s risk, the guaranty may have secured the borrower a lower rate or a longer term (or both). Petitioner’s father testified that he agreed to act as guarantor: “To expedite the loan and hopefully, get a little lower interest rate.” Indeed, Mr. Sunderland testified that the bank normally asks principals to guarantee corporate debt. Petitioners have failed to prove that the corporation had no capacity to repay the loans. They have failed to prove that there were not genuine and realistic prospects of repayment by the corporation. They have failed to prove that the bank lookedPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011