- 12 - transaction as a loan; and (9) whether the borrower was solvent at the time of the loan. United States v. Uneco, Inc. (In re Uneco, Inc.), 532 F.2d 1204, 1207 (8th Cir. 1976); McFadden v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-166; Flood v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-39; Mayhew v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-310. On the basis of the evidence in the record, we find that the $175,000 advanced to petitioner constituted a loan and is not taxable income. Not only was the transaction in form a loan but, under the circumstances of this case, that was also its substance. Here, there was a promissory note that called for fixed annual payments of principal and interest to be paid over a 10- year period. The debt was secured by a mortgage on petitioner’s real property and guaranteed in writing by Mr. Zimmerman. The mortgage was recorded with the Office of County Recorder, Washington County, Minnesota, on August 26, 1996. There were no other mortgages on the property. Amoco routinely enforced the collection of a promissory note made by a dealer/borrower if the dealer defaulted on the note. When a dealer abandoned a station, sold the station, or had significant financial trouble, Amoco took steps to collect the outstanding balance of any loan. Respondent argues that petitioner had only a contingent obligation to repay the advance, in that petitioner would notPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011