- 22 - construction loan. Petitioners claim the entire amount of this loan as expenses in computing the NOL for 1992. However, in their opening brief, they claim that interest expense was paid on the Pacific construction loans in excess of the interest reserves set up therein and according to Federal “G” rates. Again, petitioners’ method of reconstruction fails to preclude the possibility of a double-counting of expenses. Further, this loan was secured by a pledge of a note and a deed of trust from Golden Sunset Homes, Inc., petitioners’ wholly owned corporation. There is evidence in the record that the interest obligations to Golden Sunset on the note were assigned to the bank, and those interest payments may have been credited against petitioners’ obligations on the Pacific loan. Petitioners did not report the pledge of the note, the deed of trust, or any interest payments as corporate distributions or dividends. In any event, there is no evidence in the record showing whether this loan was repaid. With respect to the $250,000 loan, a portion of that loan represents the renewal of an existing loan of $150,000. There is nothing in the record showing that the prior loan was paid into the Atherton project. Documents from Pacific indicate that $90,000 of the $250,000 loan was earmarked for the payment of outstanding material and subcontractor bills. However, those documents are insufficient substantiation of those expenses. Petitioners have failed to provide a reasonable basis forPage: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011