Thomas and Linda O'Connell - Page 16




                                       - 16 -                                         
          in the corporation.  See id.; Benak v. Commissioner, 77 T.C.                
          1213, 1218 (1981).  Considering these factors in the present                
          case, it is more probable that petitioner’s guaranty was intended           
          to protect his investment in Mayflower than it was to protect his           
          salary from a corporation that he wholly controlled.  The amount            
          of the loan guaranty was disproportionate to petitioner’s salary            
          from Mayflower and is more likely related to his investment in              
          Mayflower.  Petitioner even asserts in his brief:                           
                    As a result of an adverse loss ratio in 1988, it                  
               was required that Mayflower/Jordan pay back a large                    
               amount of money to Constitution Reinsurance.                           
               Mayflower/Jordan did not have the funds at the time, so                
               the petitioner secured a loan that was passed on to the                
               corporation.  If the monies had not been paid to                       
               Constitution, they would have withdrawn their                          
               reinsurance support.  This action would have put                       
               Mayflower/Jordan out of business immediately.                          
                    *      *      *      *      *      *      *                       
                    The loan was essential if the company was to                      
               continue to operate.                                                   
          We conclude that the bad debt deduction must be treated as a                
          nonbusiness bad debt.                                                       
               We have considered the other arguments of the parties.  They           
          are either unnecessary to our decision or lacking in merit.                 
                                                  Decision will be entered            
                                             under Rule 155.                          











Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  

Last modified: May 25, 2011