- 4 -
Calumet Indus., Inc. v. Commissioner, supra at 285-286 (quoting
Fin Hay Realty Co. v. United States, 398 F.2d 694, 697 (3d Cir.
1968)). The names given to documents evidencing the
indebtedness, the presence or absence of a fixed maturity date,
the source of repayments, the right to enforce repayment of the
advance, the intent of the parties, the failure of the
corporation to repay on the due date, and other factors are
considered to determine whether a payment is a contribution to
capital or bona fide debt. See Tex. Farm Bureau v. United
States, 725 F.2d 307 (5th Cir. 1984); Am. Offshore, Inc. v.
Commissioner, 97 T.C. 579, 602-606 (1991). No one factor is
controlling, and the determination of whether there is a loan or
a contribution to capital is a question of fact which must be
decided on the basis of all the relevant facts and circumstances.
Calumet Indus., Inc. v. Commissioner, supra at 285.
The expenses paid on behalf of SEI were not bona fide
loans.2 Mr. Bynum and SEI did not have a debtor-creditor
relationship. Mr. Bynum certainly paid and substantiated a wide
array of business expenses, but these payments were not loans to
2 Pursuant to sec. 7491(a), petitioners have the burden of
proof unless they introduce credible evidence relating to the
issue that would shift the burden to respondent. See Rule
142(a). Our conclusions, however, are based on a preponderance
of the evidence, and thus the allocation of the burden of proof
is immaterial. See Martin Ice Cream Co. v. Commissioner, 110
T.C. 189, 210 n.16 (1998).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008