- 7 - stockholders while FTB loans remained outstanding. On November 21, 1995, when the prime rate was 8.5 percent, petitioner borrowed $650,000 from FTB, at 7.5 percent, to pay Mr. Rowe. In 1997, petitioner and FTB executed a promissory note for $1,000,000 that was modified in 1998. The interest rate on the note was below the prime rate. At the time the petition was filed, petitioner’s principal place of business was located in Millington, Tennessee. OPINION Respondent contends that petitioner’s interest expense deductions relating to payments made to the Rowes should be disallowed because the transfers were capital investments and not loans. Petitioner contends that the transfers were loans. Taxpayers are entitled to a deduction for payments made on bona fide indebtedness that relates to an existing, unconditional, and legal obligation to repay. Sec. 163(a); Burrill v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 643 (1989). Petitioner bears the burden of proving that the transfers are debt and not equity.3 Rule 142(a); Smith v. Commissioner, 370 F.2d 178, 180 (6th Cir. 1966), affg. T.C. Memo. 1964-278. Transfers between related parties are examined with special scrutiny when taxpayers contend that such transfers are loans. 3 Sec. 7491(a) is inapplicable because petitioner does not meet the net worth requirements of sec. 7430(c)(4)(A)(ii), which are cross-referenced in sec. 7491(a)(2)(C).Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011