- 14 -
there was no hope of getting paid. It was over. And
that was in the year 2000.
Petitioner contends that all activity on the Kirshner deal ended
in the year 2000 due to litigation against Kirshner by an outside
investor who had been brought in by petitioner. Up to that
point, petitioner contends, he had continued to try to raise
capital, reform Kirshner Content, and repay the outstanding debt.
Petitioner offered the testimony of his business partner,
Thurmond, with respect to the claimed deduction. However,
Thurmond was uncertain when the business relationship
definitively ended. He admitted that the actual attempt to fund
and operate Kirshner Content ended “a long time ago” but was
unable to fix an exact date, other than it was in the late 1990s.
At trial, Thurmond stated it was either in 1999 or 2000.12 While
Thurmond believed that several Kirshner entities received interim
financing, he could not positively state that Kirshner Global
received any interim financing. Thurmond’s testimony does not
convince the Court that the business relationship ended in the
year 2000.
Moreover, the Court is not satisfied from the evidence that
there even was a bona fide debt, much less a debt that became
wholly worthless in 2000 for the following reasons.
12 Thurmond also stated at one point that it was in 2002 but
immediately corrected himself to provide that it was “either 2000
or before”.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011