Bowman v. Commissioner

1995 T.C. Memo. 259, 69 T.C.M. 2886, 1995 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 260
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedJune 13, 1995
DocketDocket No. 23214-92
StatusUnpublished

This text of 1995 T.C. Memo. 259 (Bowman v. Commissioner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Tax Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bowman v. Commissioner, 1995 T.C. Memo. 259, 69 T.C.M. 2886, 1995 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 260 (tax 1995).

Opinion

LOY E. BOWMAN AND MALOIS BOWMAN, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Bowman v. Commissioner
Docket No. 23214-92
United States Tax Court
T.C. Memo 1995-259; 1995 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 260; 69 T.C.M. (CCH) 2886;
June 13, 1995, Filed

*260 Decision will be entered for petitioners.

For petitioners: John A. Beam III.
For respondent: Robert J. Misey, Jr.
GERBER

GERBER

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION

GERBER, Judge: Respondent, by notice of deficiency, disallowed petitioners' claimed deduction for worthless loans made to their daughter and determined a deficiency of $ 9,800 in petitioners' 1987 Federal income tax. Respondent, in the notice of deficiency, determined that advances made by petitioners to their daughter were gifts rather than loans. If we decide that the advances were loans, respondent alternatively argues that the loans did not become worthless in 1987 and that petitioners' bad debt deduction in that year was premature. Respondent's alternate position was raised at trial and included in an amended answer. If we find that the advances were loans that became worthless in 1987, the parties have agreed that petitioners' loss arising therefrom is to be treated as a nonbusiness bad debt within the meaning of section 166(d). 1

*261 FINDINGS OF FACT 2

Petitioners resided in Hermitage, Tennessee, at the time the petition was filed.

Sometime prior to September 5, 1985, Loy E. Bowman (petitioner) was asked by his daughter, Cathy Bowman (Cathy), for money to finance a skating rink business. Cathy had been interested and involved in skating for many years and had believed she had the knowledge to operate a successful skating rink business in Morristown, Tennessee. She thought it was an appropriate time to begin this business after a rink previously operating in that area had burned and ceased operations. At that time, Cathy was 23 years old and lived in the Morristown area with her aunt and uncle. Although Cathy did not have a formal business education, she acquired experience through employment in family businesses, including part-time work at her aunt and uncle's video store. She also attended the Morristown vocational school, worked occasionally *262 at a nursing home, and eventually became a licensed practical nurse (LPN).

Prior to beginning her skating business, Cathy made inquiries of the owners of a skating rink in Oliver Springs, Tennessee, about conducting a skating rink business. Additionally, through her own observations and patronage, Cathy reasoned that the previous skating rink in Morristown had been profitable. She considered several large rental buildings in the area and compared their costs and feasibility to accommodate a skating rink business. She settled on a building in the Panther Springs community of Morristown and entered into a lease for the building at $ 750 per month beginning in August 1985.

Prior to advancing money to Cathy for her skating business, petitioner made inquiries of an acquaintance who owned the Donelson Skating Rink in Nashville, Tennessee. After these discussions, and upon observing that operation, petitioner concluded that Cathy's skating business would be successful. Petitioner believed that Cathy could get the business started with about $ 20,000 of initial capital, which he agreed to advance her. Petitioner advanced $ 18,000 to Cathy via a cashier's check dated September 5, 1985, *263 and an additional $ 4,000 via a personal check dated September 21, 1985. Although petitioner expected Cathy to begin repaying the advances within 1 to 2 years after the business was started, he did not ask her to sign a note or other document indicating that the advances were loans, nor did he ask for or receive a security interest in the business's assets as collateral for the money advanced. Petitioner and his daughter did, however, have an agreement that the advances were loans and that they were to be repaid. Petitioner, in accord with the agreement, included the notation "loan" on the personal check dated September 21, 1985. At the time petitioner made the advances to Cathy, his financial condition was good; he owned and operated a garbage pickup business and earned approximately $ 10,000 per month. Petitioner was not knowledgeable about law or taxes.

At the time Cathy received the advances from petitioner, she began refurbishing the leased building. A large portion of the advances from petitioner were used to prepare the site, including painting and renovating the interior, resurfacing the floor, installing a light and sound system, and purchasing skates and skate equipment. *264 As additional capital was needed, Cathy sought financial assistance from petitioner. Petitioner advanced $ 14,890 additional capital to Cathy in cash or by check prior to the opening and during the first few months of operation. These additional advances are evidenced in the record by copies of four deposit slips dated October 15, 1985, October 18, 1985, November 11, 1985, and January 6, 1986, in the amounts of $ 3,390, $ 2,000, $ 1,889 (of which petitioner claims only $ 1,500 represents loan proceeds), and $ 2,500, respectively, and two canceled checks dated December 27, 1985, and June 8, 1986, in the amounts of $ 2,500 and $ 3,000, respectively. Petitioner again wrote the notation "loan" on the latter two personal checks. The deposit slips represent advances made solely in cash.

Cathy used some of the additional advances from petitioner to complete renovations on the skating rink, which opened for business in November 1985. The rink operated under the name Panther Springs MBC Skating (Panther Springs).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Fin Hay Realty Co. v. United States
398 F.2d 694 (Third Circuit, 1968)
Feinstein v. Commissioner
24 T.C. 656 (U.S. Tax Court, 1955)
Denver & R. G. W. R. Co. v. Commissioner
32 T.C. 43 (U.S. Tax Court, 1959)
Malone & Hyde, Inc. v. Commissioner
49 T.C. 575 (U.S. Tax Court, 1968)
Andrew v. Commissioner
54 T.C. 239 (U.S. Tax Court, 1970)
Fisher v. Commissioner
54 T.C. 905 (U.S. Tax Court, 1970)
Estate of Reynolds v. Commissioner
55 T.C. 172 (U.S. Tax Court, 1970)
Crown v. Commissioner
77 T.C. 582 (U.S. Tax Court, 1981)
Kean v. Commissioner
91 T.C. No. 37 (U.S. Tax Court, 1988)
Perry v. Commissioner
92 T.C. No. 28 (U.S. Tax Court, 1989)
American Offshore, Inc. v. Commissioner
97 T.C. No. 41 (U.S. Tax Court, 1991)
Herskovits v. Commissioner
110 F.2d 272 (Second Circuit, 1940)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1995 T.C. Memo. 259, 69 T.C.M. 2886, 1995 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 260, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bowman-v-commissioner-tax-1995.