- 26 -
manipulate the price of a security to the advantage of a
disqualified person constitutes a prohibited transaction.
In light of the legislative history illustrating the meaning
of this statutory provision, it is apparent that the evidentiary
record is consistent with a conclusion that petitioner derived a
benefit (as significant part owner of each of the Borrowers)
from the Borrowers’ securing financing without having to deal
with independent lenders. That is, it is possible that
petitioner derived a benefit. However, it also is possible that
petitioner did not derive a benefit. From the evidentiary record
herein, we cannot determine which of these possibilities is the
more likely one.
When we examine the record for evidence that petitioner did
not derive a benefit (e.g., did not receive any money, or did not
enhance the values of his investments in the Borrowers), we find
nothing.13
Petitioner has the burden of proving by a preponderance of
the evidence that the loans, or any of them, did not constitute
uses of the Plan’s income or assets for his own benefit. Rule
142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111 (1933); Borchers v.
Commissioner, 95 T.C. 82, 91 (1990), affd. 943 F.2d 22 (8th Cir.
13 Petitioner’s denials on brief are not evidence. Rule
143(b); Evans v. Commissioner, 48 T.C. 704, 709 (1967), affd. 413
F.2d 1047 (9th Cir. 1969).
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011