DocketNumber: Docket No. 3890-94
Citation Numbers: 71 T.C.M. 3041, 1996 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 254, 1996 T.C. Memo. 234
Judges: LARO
Filed Date: 5/22/1996
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
*254 Decision will be entered under Rule 155.
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
LARO,
Taxable | |||
Year | Addition to Tax | Penalty | |
Ended | Sec. | Sec. | |
May 31 | Deficiencies | 6651(a)(1) | 6662 |
1990 | $ 2,687 | $ 672 | $ 537 |
1991 | 14,677 | --- | 2,935 |
1992 | 16,546 | --- | 3,309 |
Following concessions, we must decide:
1. Whether funds advanced by petitioner to a related corporation are deductible under
2. Whether petitioner is liable for the addition to tax for delinquency determined by respondent under
3. Whether petitioner is liable for the accuracy-related penalties determined by respondent under
Unless otherwise stated, section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue. Rule*255 references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Dollar amounts are rounded to the nearest dollar. We refer to petitioner's taxable year ended May 31, 1990, as the 1989 taxable year. We refer to petitioner's taxable year ended May 31, 1991, as the 1990 taxable year. We refer to petitioner's taxable year ended May 31, 1992, as the 1991 taxable year.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. The stipulation of facts and attached exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference. Petitioner's principal place of business was in Lansing, Michigan, when it petitioned the Court. It filed a Form 1120, U.S. Corporation Income Tax Return, for each year in issue using a fiscal year ended May 31 and an accrual method of accounting. Its 1989, 1990, and 1991 Forms 1120 were filed on October 15, 1991, February 27, 1992, and January 19, 1993, respectively.
At all times relevant herein, petitioner was a member of an organization of over 50 businesses that were engaged in the adult entertainment industry. All of these businesses were wholly or partially owned by Harry V. Mohney (Mr. Mohney) either directly or indirectly through various trusts.
In*256 1966, Mr. Mohney began acquiring (and operating as sole proprietorships) numerous enterprises that were primarily engaged in adult entertainment. In the early 1970's, Mr. Mohney organized each aspect of his businesses as a separate corporation. Mr. Mohney also established five domestic trusts, of which he and his four children were beneficiaries. Each of these trusts owned an interest in another domestic trust, the Durand Trust, which owned all the stock of Dynamic Industries, Ltd., which owned many of Mr. Mohney's operating companies. Mr. Mohney, together with three family members and a business associate, Elizabeth L. Scribner, was also a beneficiary of a foreign trust that owned all the stock of several foreign holding companies, which owned all the stock of various foreign and domestic operating companies including Adult Fun Center, Inc. (Adult Fun), a domestic corporation. Prior to the years in issue, Adult Fun was an adult novelty store with its principal place of business in Phoenix, Arizona.
Petitioner operated a live entertainment night club in Toledo, Ohio. Petitioner also provided operational, management, and consulting services to adult entertainment clubs doing business*257 as "Deja Vu". Donald Krontz (Mr. Krontz), who served as petitioner's president during the subject years, made all of petitioner's executive decisions in consultation with Mr. Mohney.
In 1990, Adult Fun relocated to a store adjoining petitioner in Toledo, Ohio, to sell adult lingerie. Adult Fun solicited funds from petitioner to remodel its new location and to start-up its business there. Beginning on February 9, 1990, petitioner made unsecured cash advances to Adult Fun that were evidenced by the following promissory notes (Notes):
Date | Amount | Interest Rate | Repayment Schedule |
Apr. 13, 1990 | $ 6,117 | 10% | $ 150/month |
May 5, 1990 | 2,000 | 10% | 500/month |
June 6, 1990 | 17,468 | 10% | 250/month |
Aug. 8, 1990 | 3,000 | 10% | 200/month |
Oct. 18, 1990 | 1,000 | 10% | previously agreed |
Total | 29,585 |
The advances were not, in all instances, contemporaneous with the execution of a note. For example, petitioner paid $ 5,000 to a construction firm on February 9, 1990, and it paid an additional amount to the same firm on April 13, 1990. These funds, which were paid to remodel Adult Fun's new location, were reflected in the note dated April 13, 1990. Petitioner also advanced $ 11,968*258 to Adult Fun on March 9, 1990, for remodeling. This advance was reflected in the June 6, 1990, note.
In addition to the advances above, petitioner made the following cash advances to Adult Fun:
Date | Amount | |
May 2, 1990 | $ 150 | |
May 29, 1990 | 285 | |
Aug. 8, 1990 | 15 | |
Total | 450 |
Petitioner added these three cash advances onto the note dated April 13, 1990.
Petitioner did not require collateral, take back liens or personal guarantees, or request to examine Adult Fun's books, tax returns, or financial statements before or after making any of the advances. On its books, petitioner recorded the advances as loans. Adult Fun recorded the advances as debts. *259 Adult Fun began a business under the name "Deja Vu Boutique" sometime in May or June 1990. Shortly after it opened, petitioner's management determined that Adult Fun was not doing well, and petitioner made further advances to Adult Fun. By November 1990, Adult Fun ceased its payroll, and released its employees. In early 1991, Adult Fun closed its store and discontinued its business activities. On April 10, 1992, petitioner and Adult Fun agreed that petitioner would be assigned Adult Fun's leasehold improvements on account of the $ 30,035 in advances ($ 29,585 + $ 450) made by petitioner to Adult Fun. The parties agreed that the value of the assigned property was $ 21,000.
For Federal income tax purposes, Adult Fun reported net operating losses (NOL's) of $ 71,032 and $ 40,083 for its 1985 and 1986 taxable years, respectively. For its 1987 taxable year, Adult Fun reported taxable income (before application of any net operating loss deduction) of $ 105,115. All of this income was attributable to cancellation of debt. For its 1988 and 1989 taxable years, Adult Fun reported no gross receipts and no taxable income. For its 1990 taxable year, Adult Fun reported total income of $ 3,662*260 and a taxable loss (before application of any net operating loss deduction) of $ 4,266.
Petitioner engaged Modern Bookkeeping Services, Inc. (MBS), another Mohney related entity, to provide it with bookkeeping and tax preparation services. MBS retained David Shindel (Mr. Shindel), a certified public accountant, to prepare petitioner's Federal income tax returns. Mr. Shindel prepared all of petitioner's Federal income tax returns that are in issue herein.
OPINION
We must decide whether, for the 1991 taxable year,
A taxpayer may deduct worthless debts.
Courts refer to numerous factors to determine whether a payment represents debt or equity. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, to which appeal in this case lies, refers primarily to 11 factors. See
We turn to these factors to determine whether petitioner and Adult Fun intended to create a debt, and whether their intention comported with the economic reality of a debtor-creditor relationship.
We look to the name of the certificate evidencing purported*263 debt to determine the "debt's" true label. The issuance of a note weighs toward debt.
Although Adult Fun issued the Notes with respect to the advances, and the Notes bore a stated interest rate of 10 percent, we give these facts little weight. The Notes were unsecured, and Adult Fun did not repay the amounts reflected therein according to the Notes' terms. Petitioner focuses on the fact that it recorded debt on its books in connection with the transfer. We are not impressed. Under the facts herein, petitioner's accounting entry lends little (if any) support for a finding of debt. See
This factor is neutral.
The presence of a fixed maturity date weighs toward debt, but is not dispositive of a debtor-creditor relationship.
The Notes had a set repayment schedule. The presence of this schedule, however, is downplayed by the fact that Adult Fun made no payments in accordance therewith. Petitioner also did not pursue collection or inquire as to payment until Adult Fun was defunct. The facts at hand indicate that a debtor-creditor relationship was not contemplated by petitioner or Adult Fun. The actions of the parties to the Notes speak louder than words. Their actions are uncharacteristic of a bona fide debtor-creditor relationship.
This factor weighs toward equity.
The presence of a fixed rate of interest and actual interest payments weigh toward debt. The absence of payments in accordance with the terms of a debt instrument weighs toward equity.
Although the notes bore an interest rate of 10 percent, Adult Fun made no principal or interest payments to petitioner (ignoring, for the moment, the transfer of the leasehold improvements). The record also indicates that petitioner took no meaningful steps to enforce any amounts that were due under the terms of the Notes.
This factor weighs toward equity.
Repayment that is dependent upon corporate earnings weighs toward equity. Repayment that is not dependent on earnings weighs toward debt.
Repayment of the advances was dependent solely on the financial success of Adult Fun. Immediate repayment was not available from Adult Fun's existing assets as Adult Fun had virtually no assets. At the time petitioner made its advances, *266 Adult Fun had not yet begun operations and had regularly sustained losses. In essence, petitioner gambled that Adult Fun's operations would be successful and lost. Advances made under these conditions are not bona fide debt.
This factor weighs toward equity.
Thin or inadequate capitalization weighs toward equity. Advances made to a corporation with an excessive debt to equity ratio are indicative of equity rather than debt.
The record indicates that Adult Fun had virtually no assets.
This factor weighs toward equity.
Advances made by stockholders in proportion to their respective stock ownership weighs toward equity. A sharply disproportionate ratio between a stockholder's ownership percentage in the corporation and the debt owing to the stockholder by the corporation generally weighs toward debt.
Although petitioner did not have a direct stock interest in Adult Fun, petitioner and Adult Fun shared a legal and economic relationship as parts of Mr. Mohney's larger enterprise. Indeed, petitioner's president testified that all of petitioner's executive decisions were made in consultation with Mr. Mohney.
This factor weighs toward equity.
The absence of security for purported debt weighs toward equity.
Petitioner did not receive (nor did it attempt to receive) any type of security interest or personal guarantees for its advances. If Adult Fun's business did not prosper, *268 petitioner could only recover its advances from its share of the proceeds which remained after obligations to secured creditors were satisfied. Indeed, when petitioner accepted an assignment from Adult Fun in 1992, all that remained were various leasehold improvements. Mr. Krontz explained that he did not require security because of the relationship between Adult Fun and petitioner as members of Mr. Mohney's enterprises, their physical proximity to each other, and his business relationship with Adult Fun's president. We find this testimony unpersuasive of a bona fide debtor-creditor relationship. We do not believe that an outside lender would have loaned substantial sums to Adult Fun in an arms-length transaction under the facts at hand. Once again, the actions of the parties to the Notes speak louder than words, and those actions do not support a true debtor-creditor relationship with respect to the advances.
This factor weighs toward equity.
The question of whether a transferee could have obtained comparable financing is relevant in measuring the economic reality of a transfer.
Petitioner presented no evidence on whether it could have obtained financing from an unrelated party at the time of the transfer. Given the facts, however, that the purported debts were completely unsecured and that Adult Fun did not have a profitable history at the time of the advances, we are left unpersuaded that an unrelated third party would have entered into financing with Adult Fun under the terms that petitioner alleges were entered into between it and Adult Fun. Indeed, we read the record to indicate that it would have been unreasonable for petitioner to have expected repayment *270 of the advances at the time they were made. Petitioner made no attempt to evaluate Adult Fun's prospects for success. It did not request any financial statements or tax returns in order to evaluate Adult Fun's financial condition. It did not ask to examine Adult Fun's books and, if it had, it would have seen that Adult Fun's tax returns reported a pattern of losses. The advances were placed at the risk of Adult Fun's business, and the terms of the advances were a patent distortion of what would normally have been available in an arm's-length transaction.
This factor weighs toward equity.
Subordination of purported debt to the claims of other creditors weighs towards equity.
Petitioner presented no evidence on the order of priority of Adult Fun's debts. Given the fact, however, that the advances were unsecured, petitioner's*271 right to repayment would have been subordinate to the interests of the secured creditors, if any. At best, petitioner and the other unsecured creditors could have shared in the proceeds that remained after the secured creditors were satisfied.
This factor weighs toward equity.
The transfer of funds from a shareholder to a corporation in order to meet the corporation's daily business needs weighs toward debt. The transfer of funds from a shareholder to a corporation in order to purchase capital assets weighs toward equity.
The purported notes represented a long term commitment that was payable mainly from future income. While some of the advances were presumably intended to meet Adult Fun's daily needs, the majority of the funds were used for remodeling expenses.
This factor weighs toward equity.
The failure to establish a sinking fund for repayment weighs toward*272 equity.
The record does not indicate that Adult Fun established a sinking fund for the repayment of the purported notes. To the contrary, repayment was to come solely from Adult Fun's earnings.
This factor weighs toward equity.
The advances were contributions to Adult Fun's equity. Accordingly, petitioner may not deduct any loss on the advances under
Respondent determined an addition to tax under
Petitioner filed its return for its 1989 taxable year almost 8 months past the due dates prescribed in
Respondent also determined accuracy-related penalties under
Petitioner argues that it is within the exception under
We do not agree. Reasonable reliance on a tax adviser is consistent with ordinary business care and prudence only in certain cases. In those cases, the taxpayer must establish that: (1) The adviser had sufficient expertise to justify reliance, (2) the taxpayer provided necessary and accurate information to the adviser, and (3) the taxpayer actually relied in good faith *275 on the adviser's judgment. See, e.g.,
We have considered all of petitioner's arguments for contrary holdings and, to the extent not addressed above, find them to be without merit.
To reflect concessions by respondent,
1. Adult Fun's taxable year ended on Feb. 28. With the exception of the advances and a $ 50 payable for State income taxes, Adult Fun's balance sheet on Feb. 28, 1991, listed no liabilities. The balance sheet on Feb. 28, 1991, listed assets of $ 20,724, which were the leasehold improvements mentioned below. Those improvements were the only asset that Adult Fun had reported on a yearend balance sheet since Feb. 28, 1987. Adult Fun's balance sheet on Feb. 28, 1987, listed total assets of $ 1,077 and total liabilities of $ 106,192. Adult Fun listed paid-in capital of $ 6,000 on each of its yearend balance sheets from Feb. 28, 1987 to Feb. 28, 1991.↩
condor-international-inc-nka-applied-resources-inc-v-commissioner , 78 F.3d 1355 ( 1996 )
C. M. Gooch Lumber Sales Co. v. Commissioner , 49 T.C. 649 ( 1968 )
Emmons v. Commissioner , 92 T.C. 342 ( 1989 )
Byerlite Corporation v. Parker C. Williams, District ... , 286 F.2d 285 ( 1960 )
Paul W. Berthold and Dorothy Berthold v. Commissioner of ... , 404 F.2d 119 ( 1968 )
Estate of Travis Mixon, Jr. v. United States , 464 F.2d 394 ( 1972 )
In Re James A. Lane, Bankrupt. Frances B. Lane and James M. ... , 742 F.2d 1311 ( 1984 )
Roth Steel Tube Company v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , 800 F.2d 625 ( 1986 )
Stinnett's Pontiac Service, Inc., Richard W. Stinnett and ... , 730 F.2d 634 ( 1984 )
Austin Village, Inc. v. United States , 432 F.2d 741 ( 1970 )
George T. Smith and Clela v. Smith v. Commissioner of ... , 370 F.2d 178 ( 1966 )
Coles W. Raymond, M.D. And Virginia Raymond, His Wife v. ... , 511 F.2d 185 ( 1975 )
United States v. Boyle , 105 S. Ct. 687 ( 1985 )
Gary M. Emmons and Martha C. Emmons v. Commissioner of ... , 898 F.2d 50 ( 1990 )
Welch v. Helvering , 54 S. Ct. 8 ( 1933 )
Litton Business Systems, Inc. v. Commissioner , 61 T.C. 367 ( 1973 )
Catalano v. Commissioner , 81 T.C. 8 ( 1983 )
Nassau Lens Co., Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, ... , 308 F.2d 39 ( 1962 )