Answered step by step
Verified Expert Solution
Question
1 Approved Answer
William G. Allen, et al. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2023 -86 , Code Sec(s) 166. WILLIAM G. ALLEN, ET AL., Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
William G. Allen, et al. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2023 -86 , Code Sec(s) 166. WILLIAM G. ALLEN, ET AL., Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent, HUMBOLT INVESTMENTS, LLC, ALLEN FAMILY INVESTMENT TRUST U/A/D 12/1/03, TAX MATTERS PARTNER, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. Case Information: [pg. 769] Code Sec(s): 166 Docket: Dkt. Nos. 28210-15, 31951-15. Date Issued: 07/11/2023. Judge: Opinion by Ashford, J. Tax Year(s): Years 2005, 2006, 2009. Disposition: Decision for Commissioner. HEADNOTE 1. Bad debt deductionsrelated entitiesdebt vs. equityproof. Tax Court determined that allegedly worthless advances to/between real estate developer's related entities weren't bona fide debt, and as such didn't qualify for bad debt deduction. Key factors included that although there were promissory notes with fixed maturity date, repayment was dependent on business success/successful lot sales. It was also telling that purported repayment right was never exercised; and fact that there were no interest payments and only inconsistent principal payments indicated there was no real expectation of repayment, and that advances instead were intended as equity
Step by Step Solution
There are 3 Steps involved in it
Step: 1
Get Instant Access to Expert-Tailored Solutions
See step-by-step solutions with expert insights and AI powered tools for academic success
Step: 2
Step: 3
Ace Your Homework with AI
Get the answers you need in no time with our AI-driven, step-by-step assistance
Get Started