- 66 -
C. Loans for Petitioner’s Family Support Obligations
Petitioner contends that NCPL lent him $12,000, $8,760, and
$181,765 in 2000, 2001, 2002, respectively, to pay his spousal and
child support obligations and the interest owing on the $1,400,000
divorce settlement.
With respect to this purported loan, the record discloses:
(1) No promissory note or other instrument was executed; (2) no
collateral was pledged to secure repayment; (4) there was no fixed
schedule for repayment; (4) as determined above, it was not
reasonable to expect at the time the funds were advanced
petitioner could repay them; (5) no interest was charged or paid;
and (6) petitioner did not intend at the time the funds were
advanced to make any payments.
Petitioner testified that his employer paid his family
support obligations because the divorce was a very difficult time
in petitioner’s life. According to petitioner, his employer
assured him that he could pay the money back at an “appropriate
time in the future”. Petitioner had previously written in
response to Agents Rans’s inquiries that the family support
obligations were paid by NCPL to purchase Kumiko Talmage’s equity
in the Rivercliff property.
Petitioner has failed to meet his burden of proving that the
funds advanced for his family support obligations of $12,000,
$8,760, and $181,765 in 2000, 2001, 2002, respectively,
Page: Previous 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008