-58-
Commissioner, 800 F.2d at 631; see also Estate of Strangi v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-145 (“accounting entries alone are
of small moment in belying the existence of an agreement for
retained possession and enjoyment”).
This factor weighs toward a finding that decedent’s use of
the funds of the LRFLP did not create bona fide debt.
ii. Fixed Maturity Date and Schedule of Repayments
The absence of a fixed maturity date and a fixed obligation
to repay weighs against a finding of bona fide debt. See Roth
Steel Tube Co. v. Commissioner, supra at 631; Stinnett’s Pontiac
Serv., Inc. v. Commissioner, 730 F.2d at 638.
The promissory notes had no fixed maturity date or schedule
for repayment. While petitioners assert that each note was a
demand note for which payment could have been requested at any
time, LRFLP never made any such demand and, more importantly,
decedent never had the ready ability to honor such a demand if
and when one had been made. Moreover, despite the lack of any
repayment, the LRFLP continued to allow decedent to use its funds
without any schedule for repayment. As noted by the Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, “an unsecured note due on
demand with no specific maturity date, and no payments is
insufficient to evidence a genuine debt.” Stinnett’s Pontiac
Serv., Inc. v. Commissioner, supra at 638. Such is especially so
where, as here, the choice of whether or when to make demand for
Page: Previous 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011