Nariman Teymourian - Page 12

                                       - 12 -                                         
          Welch v. Commissioner, 204 F.3d 1228, 1230 (9th Cir. 2000), affg.           
          T.C. Memo. 1998-121; see also J.A. Tobin Construction Co. v.                
          Commissioner, supra at 1022.  No single factor is controlling,              
          and the transaction must be examined as a whole.  Welch v.                  
          Commissioner, supra at 1230.  We address each of these factors in           
               1.  Petitioner’s Promise To Pay Was Not Evidenced by a Note            
               The absence of a note or other loan documentation is                   
          indicative of a constructive dividend.  Miele v. Commissioner,              
          supra at 568-569; see also Roschuni v. Commissioner, supra at               
          1201-1202; Jones v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-400, affd.                
          without published opinion 177 F.3d 982 (11th Cir. 1999); Weigel             
          v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-485.  However, loans without               
          documentation are not uncommon between a shareholder and a                  
          closely held corporation, and such documentation is not a                   
          prerequisite to finding that a loan exists.  Miele v.                       
          Commissioner, supra at 568-569; Weigel v. Commissioner, supra.              
               Petitioner stipulated that he did not execute formal loan              
          documents with respect to the disbursements made by Caspian                 
          during the years in issue.  While this factor alone is not                  
          determinative, it weighs in favor of finding a constructive                 

Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011