- 59 -
him her interest. Kumiko Talmage credibly testified that, before
the divorce proceedings, she had never heard of NCPL, was not
aware petitioner had borrowed any money to develop the Rivercliff
property, and was not asked to sign an agreement granting a
security interest in the Rivercliff property.
In addition, petitioner produced no evidence indicating
collateral was given to secure payment of the $249,193 TPPL
transferred to SSI in 1998 for the development of the Rivercliff
property or the total of $92,250 NCPL transferred to petitioner
for the Rivercliff property’s farm operating expenses in 1998,
2001, and 2002.
This factor indicates the parties did not intend to establish
a debtor-creditor relationship at the time the funds were
advanced.
3. Whether a Fixed Schedule for Repayments Was
Established
A fixed schedule for repayment is indicative of a bona fide
loan. Welch v. Commissioner, 204 F.3d at 1231; Teymourian v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-232. Evidence that a creditor did
not intend to enforce payment or was indifferent as to the exact
time an advance was repaid indicates a bona fide loan did not
exist. Gooding Amusement Co. v. Commissioner, 23 T.C. 408, 418-
419 (1954), affd. 236 F.2d 159 (6th Cir. 1956); Provost v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-177.
Page: Previous 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008