- 6 -
station, or had significant financial trouble, Amoco routinely
took steps to collect the outstanding balance of any loan.
Amoco did not place any restrictions on petitioner’s use or
application of the Amoco advance. Petitioner used the Amoco
advance for the following expenditures:
(a) Approximately $120,000 for the purchase and/or
installation of multiproduct pumps, card readers, interior
counters, exterior canopy lighting, and floor tiling;
(b) $50,000 to Lake Elmo Bank, Lake Elmo, Minnesota, for
principal and interest on a mortgage on the Orleans Street
property; and
(c) approximately $1,000 for wall tiling in the deli area of
the gas station/convenience store at the Orleans Street property.
Neither petitioner nor Amoco terminated the dealer supply
agreement, and none of the early termination events specified in
the rider occurred through the first 5-year term. Petitioner has
not repaid Amoco any portion of the Amoco advance.
Amoco’s records indicate that it issued Forms 1099 to
“Richard Zimmerman, Stillwater Amoco” for 1996 and 1997 for the
respective amounts of $10,208.31 and $4,374.99. However, the IRS
has no record of any Forms 1099 being issued by Amoco to
petitioner, Mr. Zimmerman, and/or Stillwater Amoco for 1996 and
1997.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011