Donald L. & Evelyn Russell, Petitioner
T.C.
T.C.
T .C . Memo . 2008-246 UNITED STATES TAX COUR T DONALD L . AND EV LYN RUSSELL, ET AL .,' Petitioners v . COMMISSIONED OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Responden t Docket Nos . 44255, 4456-05, 4688- 5 .
Filed October 30, 2008 .
Jon J . Jensen , fo petitioners .
Jack Forsberg ,,fo* respondent .
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINIO N HAINES, Judge :
T ese cases are before the Court consolidated for purpo es of trial, briefing, and opinion .
Donald and'Evelyn Russoll (the Russells), Loren and Dawn Kopsen g 'Cases-of the follDwing petitioners are consolidated herewith : Loren R . and Dawn Kopseng, docket No . 4456-05 ; United Energy Corp ., docket N . 4688-05 .
D OCT 3 0 2008 (theKopsengs), and United Energy Corp . separately petitioned the Court for redetermination of the following deficiencies i n Federal income tax :
Donald L . & .Evelyn Russell, docket No . 4425-05 TYE Deficiency 12/31/1997 $128,41 4 Loren R . & Dawn Kopseng, docket No . 4456-05 TYE Deficienc y 12/31/1997 $278,340 United Energy Corp ., docket No . 4688-05 TYE Deficienc y 6/30/1998 $437,698 The issue for decision after concessions is whethe r instruments entitled "notes", "ledger debt", and "short-ter m debt" constituted "indebtedness of the S corporation to the shareholder" for purposes of determining whether petitioners Donald Russell (Mr . Russell) and Loren Kopseng (Mr . Kopseng) ha d sufficient basis under section 1366(d)(1)(B) to claim their distributive 'shares of the loss incurred by Missouri Rive r Royalty Corp . 2 2Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the'Internal'Revenue Code, as amended, and all Rule reference s (continued .
.
_ 3 FINDINGS OF FAC T Some of the-fact have been stipulated and are so found .
The stipulation of-fa is and the supplemental stipulation o f facts ., together with ttached exhibits, are incorporated herein by this reference . A the time the Russells and Kopsengs filed their petitions, the y resided in North Dakota ., At the tim e United Energy Corp .
EC) filed its petition, its principal pla c of business was in No th Dakota .
On May 18, 2005 , respondent sent petitioners notices of deficiency for the ye rs at issue . Petitioners filed timel y petitions with this Court .
I . Members of the UEC Group and Predecessor Entitie s A . United Ener Corp .
UEC' was incorporated under : the "law of North Dakota on-, Au .gustl 29, 1997 . At all times since its incorporation, :(cid:127)UEC has used thej ~ accrual method of accounting for tax and f-inancial .reportin g purposes and-has had a fiscal year and taxable year ending . Jun e 30 . At all times from the initial issuance of stock by UEC on September 1, 1997, - thr ugh June-30, 1998, all of .UEC' s outstanding stock was wned-by Mr . . Russell and Mr .Kopseng .
UEC timely filed Form 1120, U .S . Corporation Income Ta x Return, for its initia short taxable year beginning`September ~ 2('.
. .continued ) are to the Tax Court Rles of Practice and Procedure . Amount s are rounded to the fle a nearest dollar .
1997,' and ending June 30, 1998 . UEC filed its Form 1120 as the common,parent of a consolidated group of corporations consisting of itself, Rainbow Gas Co . (RGC)', Rainbow Energy Marketing Corp .
(REMC), Missouri River Royalty Corp (MRRC), and Energy Leasing Corp . (ELC) .
B .
Rainbow Gas Co .
Before 1997 the assets of RGC were owned by a~North Dakot a limited partnership (RGC Partnership) . As of August 29, 1997 , all of the general and limited partnership interests in RGC Partnership were owned by Mr . Russell and Mr . Kopseng . On August 29, 1997, in a transaction qualifying as a tax-free exchange under sectioni;351(a), all the assets of RGC Partnership were transferred to RGC, a newly formed North Dakota corporation, in exchange for the issuance of 375 shares of RGC stock to Mr .
Russell and 625 shares of RGC stock to Mr . Kopseng . The RGC shares issued to Mr . Russell and Mr . Kopseng constituted all of .
the outstanding shares of RGC .
C . , Rainbow Energy Marketing Corp .
REMC is a North Dakota corporation . As of September 1, 1997, REMC had 4,512,205 shares outstanding, of which 1,108,056 were owned by Mr . Russell and 2,701,149 were owned by Mr .
Kopseng .
Missouri Ri v r Royalty Corp .
MRRC is a Nort h akdta corporation which was September 7, 1984 .
all times before Septembe r was an S corporation .
Effective September 1, 1997, MRRC' s(cid:127)S corporation election ., MRRC filed a e Tax Return for an''S Corporation , inning January 1, 1997, and ending Augus t vant times before September ..l, 1997, MRR C had 30,000 .shares outstanding, of which Mr . Russell and M II . The Section 351 Transactio n On September 1, 1997, Mr . Russell received 350 shares of UE C stock and Mr . Kopsen g received 650 shares of UEC stock as part o f a transaction qualifyi g as a tax-free exchange under section 351(a) . As part of th section 351 transaction, Mr . Russell made a contribution to UEC f 375 shares of RGCstock, 1,108,056 shares of REMC stock, nd 15 ;000 shares of MRRC stock . Mr .
.- Kopseng made a contri b tion to UEC of 625 shares of RGC stock, 2,701, 149 shares of RE C stock, and 15,000 shares of MRRC stock .
UEC's audited co n olidated financial statement for the period ending-June 30 , 1998, contained the following statement respecting the section 351 transaction : T In August, 1997 United Energy Corporation (the company) exchange 1,000 shares of its common stock for 100% of the share of Rainbow Gas Company and Missouri River Royalty and 85% of the outstanding shares of Rainbow Energy Marketing Corporation . This transaction was accounted for under the requirements of interpretation 39 of Accounting Standards Board Opinion #16, whereby the acquisitions were treated as a transfer of shares between companies with common control in a manner similar to a pooling of interest . Accordingly, all assets and liabilities of the merged companies .:were recognized at historical cost and the historical financial statements of Rainbow Gas Company, Missouri River Royalty Corporation and Rainbow Energy .Marketing Corporation became a component of the historical financial statements of the company .
The audited financial statement made no reference to any assumption or contribution of liabilities being part of the section 351 transaction .
In their capacities as the incorporators and director s of UEC, Mr . Russell and Mr . Kopseng executed a Consent to Action Taken in Lieu of Organizational Meeting dated September 3, 199 7 (consent) . With respect to the section 351 transaction, th e consent stated as follows :
The directors were authorized to issue stock pursuant to the attached Resolution in the amount of 650 shares to Loren R . Kopseng in return for his contribution of shares from Rainbow Gas Company ; Missouri River Royalty Corporation, and Rainbow Energy Marketing Corporation, and has [sic] been authorized to issue 350 shares to Donald L . Russell in return for his contribution of shares from Rainbow Gas Company ; Missouri River Royalty Corporation, and Rainbow Energy Marketing Corporation .
The consent . made no reference to any assumption or contribution of liabilities being part of the section 351 transaction .
In their-capacit es as the directors'and-officers of UEC, Mr . Russell and Mr . K pseng executed a resolution dated Septembe 3, 199-7 The,resolu t on stated :
seng .has .transferred 625 shares of ny stock., 2,701,149 shares of Rainbow Corporation stock, .-and all shares of yalty Corporation stock to Unite d n . . In return for the transfer of ted Energy Corporation is hereby ue .650 .shares of United Energy- . ck to Loren R . Kopseng . ssellthas .transferred 375 .: shares of . ny stock, 1,108,056 shares of Rainbow Corporation stock, and(cid:127)all'shares o f .Loren R . Ko Rainbow Gas Comp Energy Marketing Missouri River R Energy Corporati these-shares, Un authorized to is Corporation's s t Donald L . R Rainbow Gas Comp Energy Marketing . Missouri River Royalty Corporation stock to United Energy Corporation . In return for the transfer of these shares, United Energy Corporation is hereby authorized to issue 350 shares of United Energy Corporation's sto k to Donald L . Russell .
The resolution made no reference to any assumption o r contribution of liabilities being part of the section 35 1 transaction .
III . Financial-Instruments of the UEC Grou p MRRC required cap .tal to purchase and rework oil wells .
Petitioners acquired c4pital for MRRC through a variety o f transactions .
A . The BNC Not e On or about Augus 16, 1996, BNC National Bank (BNC) lent $1 million to MRRC . MRRC used the proceeds of the loan to-pay off certain prior loans th t had been incurred to purchase and rework oil wells . In conside ation .for the loan, MRRC gave BNC a promissory note,. for $1 million (MRRC note) and entered into a loan agreement . 9 The MRRC note bore interest at the Wall Street Journal prime rate 'plus 2 percent and required 47 monthly payments of $25,55 2 and a balloon payment of all remaining principal and interest on August 16, 2000 . Mr . Russell and Mr . Kopseng cosigned the MRR C note . Throughout the life of the loan, interest on the MRRC not e was calculated using monthly compounding and an interest rate of 10 .25 percent . At all times from August 16, 1996, through January 3, 1997, the Wall Street Journal prime rate was 8 .25 percent .
As of January 3, 1997, the principal balance of the MRRC note'was $927,936 . On January 3, 1997, BNC canceled the MRRC note in consideration for (1) a $463,968 promissory note which Mr . Russell cosigned (the MRRC/DR note), and (2) a $463,96 8 promissory note which Mr . Kopseng cosigned (the MRRC/LK note) .
Mr . Russell and Mr . Kopseng also indicated that they . intended t o guarantee the MRRC/DR note and the MRRC/LK note . 3 I The MRRC/DR note and the MRRC/LK note both listed MRRC as the borrower and indicated that they were for the renewal of the MRRC note . The MRRC/DR note and the MRRC/LK note both bore interest at the Wall Street Journal prime rate plus 2 percent an d 3Both the MRRC/DR note and the MRRC/LK note state that they are ."guarantied with the personal guarantys [sic] of Donald L . Russell and Loren Kopseng dated 1/3/97 ."
required 44 monthly p yments of $12, 776 and a balloon paymen t the remaining princip 1 and interest on August 16, 2000 . Throug March 27, 1997, inter st on :both the MRRC/DR note and the MRRC/L note was calculated u ing an interest rate of 10 .25 percent .
After March 27, 1997, interest was calculated using an interest rate of 10 .50 percent Interest on both the MRRC/DR note and th MRRC/LK note was calc lated using monthly compounding . The Wal l Street Journal prime through March 26, 199 and 8 .5 percent from March 27, 1997 , through September 29 , Between January and September 3, 1997, MRRC made 8 month l .payments of $12,77 6 the MRRC/DR note and 8 monthly payments o $12,776 on the MRRC/L note . All monthly . payments on the MRRC/D P note and on the MRRC/L'K note were applied first to interest an d then'to principal .
The interest which accrued on the MRRC/DR note and on th e MRRC/LK note between J nuary 3 and September 3, 1997, was a s follows :
Interest Accrued Throug h MRRC/DR .Note .
MRRC/LK Note Tota l Sept . 1, 1997 Sept . 3, 199 7 $30,009 $30,009 $60,018 30,217 30,217 60,43 4 As of September 1(and September 3, 1997, the principa l balances of the MRRC/D note and the MRRC/LK note were a s follows :
10 - Principal Balance MRRC/DR Note MRRC/LK Note Sept . 1, 1997 Sept .,3, 1997 $389,915 $389,91,5 389,9i 5 389,915 On September 3, 1997, using a telephone transfer, MRRC paid BNC (,1) the $389,915 principal balance of the MRRC/DR note, (2) the $389,915 principal balance of the MRRC/LK note, (3) th e accrued interest of $2,042 on the MRRC/DR note, and (4) the accrued interest of $2,042 on the MRRC/LK note .
The $60,434 of interest that was accrued and paid on th e MRRC/DR note and MRRC/LK note was reported on the 1998 UEC Form 1120 as an interest expense of MRRC . None of the $60,434 was reported on Mr . Russell's 1997 Form 1040, U .S . Individual Income Tax Return, or .,Mr . Kopseng's 1997 Form 1040, either as interest income or as an interest expense .
As of September 1 and September 3, 1997, the fair market value of the MRRC/DR note was-equal to the MRRC/DR note' s principal balance of $389,915 . As of September 1, 1997, and as of September 3, 1997, the fair market value of the MRRC/LK note was equal to the MRRC/LK note's principal balance of $389,915 .
B .
The Russell and Kopseng Ledger Deb t Before April 5, 1996, Mr . Russell made a series of cas h advances to MRRC which MRRC used for working capital (the Russell ledger debt) . As of April 5, 1996, the principal balance of it these advances totaled $562,705 . In MRRC's books, the Russel l ledger debt was recorded as a liability in a ledger account e Russell" (the notes payable Russel l On April 5, 1996 MRRC issued a $562,705 note to Mr . Russe l for the Russell ledge debt (the Russell ledger debt note)" .
of September 1, 1997 , the principal balance of the Russell ledg e debt was $65,527 .
Before April 5 , 996, Mr . Kopseng made a series-of cash !advances to MRRC whic MRRC used for working capital (the Kopse n ledger debt) . As of Aril 5, 1996, the principal balance of these advances totale $611,144 . In MRRC's books, the Kopsen g ledger debt was"recor ed as a liability in a~ledger account entitled "Notes Payab e Kopseng" (the .notes'payable Kopsen g account) .
On April 5, 1996,1 MRRC issued a $ .611,144 note to Mr . Kopsen g debt ( the Kopseng ledger debt note ), . '-As of September 1,'11997 , he principal balance of the Kopseng ledge r debt was $117,438 .
The Russell; ledg e debt and the Kopseng,-ledger debt wer e demand' obligations .
terest on the Russell ledger debt and th e Kopseng ledger debt w a calculated using monthly compounding, There was - no requirem e t that interest accruing on the Russel l ledger debt and Kopse n ledger debt be paid at-least annually .
As of Septembe r 1997,,the fair-market value-of the Russell ledger debt wa equal to the Russell ledger debt's principal balance of $65,527 . Likewise, the fair market value o f the Kopseng ledger debt was equal to the Kopseng ledger debt's principal balance of $117,438 .
Respondent concedes that the Russell ledger debt and the Kopseng ledgeriidebt constituted indebtedness of MRRC to Mr .
Russell and Mr . Kopseng for purposes of section 1366(d)(1)(B) .
,C .
The REMC Ledger Debt I?
,REMC lent .,,,MRRC $57,000 on April 1, 1996, and $37, ;000 on April 11, 1'996 .1.(REMC ledger debt) . MRRC used the REMC ledger I debtj for working capital . In MRRC's books, the REMC ledger deb t was recorded as a liability in a ledger account-entitled "Notes Payable Kopseng/Russell Partnership ." The REMC ledger debt was a demand obligation . There was no requirement that interest accruing on the REMC ledger debt be paid at least annually .
A note was prepared in connection with the REMCiiledger debt (the REMC note) . The REMC note stated, in part, that "Effective April 1, 1996, Missouri River Royalty Corporation promises to pay Kopseng/Russell Partnership $94,000 .0.0 at an interest rate of the applicable Federal Rate Table ." Interest on the REMC ledger debt was in fact calculated at a rate that varied from the Wall Street Journal PrimelRate plus 1 percent to the Wall Street Journa l Prime Rate plus 2 percent . Interest on the REMC ledger debt was calculated using monthly compounding . At all times, the rates used to calculate interest on the REMC ledger debt exceeded the short-term, monthly,-clompounding Applicable Federa l Rate as the n in effect . There was no-requirement that. interest accruing o n the REMC ledger deb t paid at least annually .
As of September 1997, the principal, balance of the REM C ledger debt was $75,7 On June 30, 199 8 an adjusting journal entry to`MRRC's boo k s reclassified $22,042 f the $75,750 balance of the REMC ledger debt to the notes pay ble . Russell account and $53,708 of the balance to the notes ayable Kopseng account . The adjusting journal entry allocat d the balance of the REMC ledger debt between the notes pa y Russell and Mr . Kopse in April of 1996 .
As of September ledger debt was equal the REMC ledger debt's principal, balance`- .
of $75,750 .
D . , The Short-T e m Debt During the period between March 7, 1997 ., and . June . 16, _1997, MRRC received'a series of loans totaling $1,830,597 (short-term debt) as follows :
Date Amount Borrowe d Mar . r7, 1997 Mar . '13, 1997 Mar . 14, 1997, Apr . 2, 1997 Apr . 4, 1997 Apr . May 15, 1997 June ,3, 1997 June 16, 1997 .:29, 1997 Total $300,50 0 236,00 0 20,00 0 447,75 0 8,20 0 336,00 0 2,50 0 455,64 7 24,00 0 1,830,59 7 MRRC used the proceeds of the short-term debt for workin g capital .
.Between May 13, 1997, and August 27, 1997, MRRC repai d $629 ;000 of principal on the short-term debt as follows :
r Date Amount Repai d a May ',13, 1997 July, 3, 1997 Aug . 15, 1997 Aug . 25, 1997 Aug . 27, 1997 Total $200,00 0 165,00 0 90,00 0 200,00 0 37,00 0 692,00 0 No interest was paid on the short-term debt before September 3, 1997 .
The loans making up the short-term debt were transferred directly from'the checking account of RGC Partnership to the checking account of MRRC . The repayments were transferred directly from the checking account of MRRC to the checking account of RGC Partnership . Before August 31, 1997, the short- term debt was'recorded in MRRC's books as a liability in a ledger account entitled "Notes Payable RGC" . As of August 31, 1997, an adjusting journal- entlry to MRRC's books reclassified $569,29 8 the short-term debt to the notes payable Kopseng account an d $569,298 to the notes payable Russell account .
With respect to ach'of the nine loans comprising the short term debt, four notes were prepared : (1) One from Mr . Russell t ' RGC Partnership (Russ ll/RGC notes), (2) one from Mr . Kopseng t RGC Partnership (Kops ng/RGC notes), (3) one from MRRC to M Russell (MRRC/Russell notes), one from MRRC to Mr .
Kopseng'(MRRC/Kopseng notes) . The face_amount'of . .each note wa s half of the amount .t r nsferred from,RGC Partnership to MRRC o n the date of the respe tive transfer .
The face amounts of the Russell ./RGC notes, the Kopseng/RG C notes, the .MRRC/Russell notes, and the MRRC/Kopseng note s (collectively the shot-term notes) were,_ .se.t forth as follows :
Short-Term Deb t ate Lent Amoun t Ma rch 7, 1997 Ma rch 13, 1997 Ma rch 14, 1997 April 2, 1997 Ap it 4, 1997 Ap it 29, 1997 Ma 15`, 1997 Ju e 3, 1997 Ju e 16, 1997 otal $300,50 0 236,00 0 20,00 0 447,75 0 8,20 0 336, 00 0 2,50 0 455,64 7 24,00 0 1,830,597 Face Amount of Shareholder/RGC Notes Russell to RGC Kopseng to RG C $150,250 118,000 10,000 223,875 4,100 168,000 1,250 227,823 12,000 915,298 .
$150,25 0 118,00 0 10,00 0 223,,87 5 4,10 0 168,00 0 1,25 0 227,82 3 12,00 0 915,29 8 Face Amount of MRRC/Shareholder Notes MRRC to Russell MRRC to Kopsen g $150,250 118,000 10,000 223,875 4,100 168,000 1,250 227,823 12,000 915,298 $150,25 0 118,00 0 10,00 0 223,87 5 4,10 0 168,00 0 1,25 0 227,82 3 12,00 0 915,29 8 Each of the short-term notes bore an "effective" date which was identical to the date on which the corresponding . loan was made to MMRC . Both Mr . Kopseng and Mr . Russell signed each of the short-term notes, either in their individual capacities or on behalf of RGC or MMRC, but none of their signatures were dated .
The'short-term debt was a demand obligation .
Each short-term note stated that it bore interest at "an interest rate of the applicable Federal Rate Table ." However, interest on the short-term debt was calculated at a rate that varied from the Wall Street Journal Prime Rate plus 1 percent to the . Wall Street Journal Prime Rate plus .2 percent .
the short-term debt was calculated using monthly compounding .
all times, the rates sed to calculate interest on the short-term debt,exceeded the .sho t-term, monthly-compounding Applicable Federal Rate as then (cid:127)n effect .: ., There was .no requirement that interest accruing on he short-term debt be paid at least annually .
As of";.September , 1997, and Sept .ember .3,'1997, th e principal balance of, and th e accrued interest`on, the short-ter m debt was as follows :
Dat e Interest ' Principa l Sept . 1, 1997 Sept . 3, 199 7 $61,923 $1,1 318,597 62,578 1,138,59 7 On September 3, 1997, the $1,138,597 principal balance o f the short-term debt, along with accrued interest thereon o f $62,578 , was paid by. using a $1 ,201,17 .5 cashier ' s check from MRRCI ' to RGC . The $1,201,175 . . payment was reflected in MRRC's books b y (1) debiting the notes payable Russell account for $569,298, (2) debiting the notes pay ble Kopseng .account for $569,298, and (3 ) debiting the loan inte est account for $62,578 with the memo notation "Interest pai to Kopseng & Russell for Note ." The $1,201,175 payment was reflected in RGC's books by (1) creditin g the "Notes Payable Don Russell" ledger account for $569,298, (2) crediting the "Notes P yable Loren Kopseng" ledger account for 18 - $569,298, and (3) crediting the interest income account for $62,578 with the memo notation "Interest on Note Rec . from MRRC ."
.The $62,578 of accrued interest on the short-term debt wa s reported on the, 1998 .UEC Form 1120 as an interest expense of MRRC and interest income of RGC . None of the $62,578 was reported on Mr . Russell's 1997 Form 1040 or Mr . Kopseng's 1997 Form 1040, either as interest income or interest expense .
As of September 1, 1997, and as of September 3, 1997, the fair market value of the short-term debt was equal to the short- term debt's principal balance of $1,138,597 .
The MRRC note, the MRRC/DR note, the MRRC/LK note, the Russell ledger debt, the Kopseng ledger debt, the REMC ledger debt, and the short-term debt were not "publicly offered" withi n the meaning of that term as used in section 1273(b)(1), nor wer e they property of the type described in section 1273(b)(3) .
IV . ' Russell and Kopseng's Basis . in Indebtedness andi' .MRRC Stock As of the beginning of MRRC's short taxable year ending August 31, 1997, Mr . Russell's basis in his MRRC stock was $150,151, and Mr . Kopseng's basis in his MRRC stock was zero .
The MRRC 1997 Form 1120S reported an ordinary loss o f $1,117, 540, interest income of $250, and dividend income of $208 .
Consistent with the MRRC 1997 Form 1120S , the following items from MRRC ' s taxable year ended August 31 , 1997, were reported on Mr . Russell ' s 1997 return -and on Mr . Kopseng ' s 1997 return .
Item . Amount Ordi Inte Div i ary loss est income end income .
$558,77 0 12 5 10 4 As of the .end of MRRC ' s taxable year ended August 31, 1997 :
(1) Mr . Russell's-bas s in the Russell ledger debt was $65,52 7 less the amount bywh ch his basis in the Russell ledger°debt wa o properly, reduced unde section 1367(b)(2) on account of items o f MRRC for its-taxabl e ear ending August 31, ,1997, and (2) Mr .
, Kopseng ' s -basis ` in thi Kopseng ledger debt was $117,438 less th e amount by which his b sis in the Kopsehg ledger debt was properl y reduced under section 1367(b)(2) on`account of items of MRRC fo r its taxable year endi g August 31, 1997 .
Petitioners contend that they'had bases in certai n indebtedness of MRRC4 ufficient to permit them to deduct'their .
pro rata .shares ..of MRR 01 s ordinary loss of $1 ;117,540 for it s final, short taxable y ar ending August 31, 1997 . We disagree .
For the reasons set fo th below, none of the MRRC Debts, save th e Russell ledger debt an CD Kopseng ledger debt, constitute d shareholder-debt -for p (cid:127)rposes of section 1366(d) (1) (B) . We need ..
not decide whether-the burden of proof shifts to respondent unde r 'Namely-the`MRRC/D e note ; the MRRC/LK note, the Russell ledger debt, the Kopseng ledger debt, the REMC ledger debt, and the short-term debt (collectively the MRRC Debts) .
section 7491( a) because we decide this case on the basis of the preponderance of the evidence .
Section 1366 ( a) provides that a shareholder of an S corporation shall take into account his pro rata share of the S corporation's items of income, loss, deduction, or credit .
However, a shareholder may deduct his share of the S corporation's losses only to the extent . of his adjusted basis in his stock of the S corporation, sec . 1366(d)(1)(A), and "the shareholder's adjusted basis of any indebtedness of the S corporation to the shareholder", sec . 1366(d)(1)(B) . Any S corporation losses so limited may be carried forward indefinitely . Sec . 1366(d)(2) .
The jurisprudence in this area has fleshed out certain principles relating to the limitation set forth in section 1366(d)(1)(B) and the situations under which a shareholder acquires basis with respect to indebtedness . See Hitchins v .
Commissioner ,',103 T .C . 711, 715 (1994) ; Grojean v . Commissioner , T .C . Memo . 1999-425, affd . 248 F .3d 572 (7th Cir . 20,01) . First, a shareholder,, must make an actual economic outlay .
Underwood v .
Commissioner ,,ii535 F .2d 309 (5th Cir . 1976), affg . 63 . T .C . 468 (1975) ; Perry v . Commissioner , 54 T .C . 1293, 1296 (1970), affd .
(continued .
economic outlay must leave the"taxpayer-)'poorer in a'materia l sense" in order for i s bona-fides to be respected .
Perry v .
. Commissioner , supra a 1296 ; see also Bergman v . United States , Second, the S corporation's indebtedness must run directl y to the shareholder ; a indebtedness to a passthrough,entity tha t advanced the'funds=-an is closely related to :`the taxpayer doe s not satisfy the, statutory requirements .- Frankel v,. Commissione r
Furthermore, no form of indirect borrowing, be it-a guaranty , surety,'accommodation comaking'or otherwise, gives rise t o indebtedness from the corporation to the shareholder s until and unless the ;, hareholders pay part or al-l'of th e 5 ( .
. . continued ) the extent of his inv stmerit in-the S corporation . 'S . Rept .. 1.983, 85thCong ., 2d Sess . '219-220 (1958), 1958-3 C .B . 922, 114 1 ("The amount of the(cid:127)net operating loss apportioned to an y shareholder * * * is limited under [former] section 1374(c)(2 ) [the predecessor` of sec . 1366(U)(1)] to .the adjusted basis of the shareholder's investment in the corporation ; that is,(to th e adjusted basis of-the°stockin the corporation owned by th e shareholder and the adjusted basis of-any indebtedness of . th e corporation to the sha eholder .")' ; see also Perry v .- Commissioner , 54 T .C . 1293, 1296 (1970) (concluding tha t the word "investment " ' ndicat`ed an intent to-limit a shareholder's basis to that shareholder's "actual economi c outlay"), affd . 27 AFT '2d 71-1464, 71-2-USTC .par . 9502 (8th Cir . 1971) .
22 - .
existing obligation . Before that crucial act, "liability" may exist, but not debt to the shareholders .
Raynor v . Commissioner ,
I .
The MRRC/DR Note and the MRRC/LK Not e Mr . Russell and Mr . Kopseng cosigned and guaranteed the MRRC/DR note and the MRRC/LK note . However, neither were required to make any payments with respect to the MRRC notes . I n the absence of any discernable economic outlay, Mr . Russell and p Mr . Kopseng's cosigning and guaranteeing of the MRRC notes did not give rise to "indebtedness. of the S corporation to the shareholder" under section 1366(d)(1)(B) . See Raynor v .
Commissioner , supra at 770 (holding that a_shareholder's guaranty of a'loan to an S corporation, in the absence of actual payments, does not create indebtedness) ; :: Keech v . .Commissioner ,l T .C . Memo 1993-71 (holding that a shareholder's co-signing of a loan to an S corporation may not be treated as an equity investment in the corporation absent an economic outlay by the shareholder) .
Further,,, cosigning and guaranteeing the notes did not creat e an indebtedness running directly from MRRC to Mr . Russell and Mr .
Kopseng . MRRC's only indebtedness ran to BNC . The mer e possibility that MRRC .could become obligated to Mr . Russell and Mr .'Kopseng at some future time is irrelevant for purposes of determining indebtedness of the S corporation to the, shareholder .
See' Maloof v . Commissioner , 456 F .3d 645 (6th Cir . 2006), affg .
T .C . Memo . 2005-75 . Accordingly, Mr . Russell and-Mr .-Kopseng d not obtain basis in t e MRRC notes .
.
II .
The REMC Ledger .pebt The REMC ledger debt was originally lent to MRRC"in Apri l 1996, by REMC, a C corporation owned by Mr . Russell and Mr .
Kopseng . A loan to a . ,S 'corporation by another entity owned b y the S corporation's shareholder is not an indebtedness of-the S corporation- to the shareholder .
See, e .g ., . Frankel v .
Commissioner , supra a 350' (holding,that loans to an S' corporation from a pa tnership owned by the same shareholders does not constitute indebtedness of the S corporation to th e shareholders) ; Burnst Ein v . Commissioner , supra (holding tha t loans between two S corporation s owned by the same shareholder s do not create .a debt unning directly to the shareholders) .
Although the REMC . le d er debt was eventually reclassified in MRRC's books on June-3 0, 1998, as notes payable to Mr . Russell and Mr . Kopseng, the r ecord is devoid of any evidence suggesting that this 'treatment wa s intended'at the time REMC made the loan s Standing by itself, th is adjustment of a journal entry severa l years after the actua l transaction is insufficient to'reclas .sify the source of a loan .
See Burnstein v . Commissioner , supra .
Because the REMC ledge debt~did'not run directly to Mr . Russel l and Mr . Kopseng, it di not increase their bases in MRRC .
1i III . The . Short-Term Deb t Respondent contends that the short-term debt should be classified as a direct loan from RGC Partnership to MRRC .
Petitioners contend that the short-term debt constituted a serie s of back-to-back loans from RGC Partnership to Mr . Russell and Mr .
Kopseng and from Mr . Russell and Mr . Kopseng to MRRC . We agre e with-respondent .
The only evidence in the record supporting petitioners ' characterization consists of (1) the short-term notes' themselves p and .(2) the August 31, 1997,., adjusting journal entry to MRRC's books reclassifying the short-term debt . The four short-term notes have little probative value as'nothing in the recor d indicates that, they were executed contemporaneously with the nine advances to MRRC . Although each short-term note bears an effective date which is identical to the date on which RG C Partnership made a corresponding advance to MRRC, Mr . Russell' s and Mr . Kopseng's signatures on the notes are not themselves dated, and petitioners failed to present evidence indicating when the notes were executed .
Petitioners' reclassification of the short-term,, ,Idebt on MRRC's books is insufficient by itself to prove the loans' origin . The reclassification occurred on the last day of MRRC's final taxable,, year and only one day before the section 351 25, transaction . Petitioners offered no explanation for the timing of the reclassificat'on . Not being contemporaneous wit h the actual, advances, the adjusting journal entry canno t establish that the short-term debt constituted back-to-back loa n s at the time the advances were made . See Burnstein v .
Commissioner , T .C . Memo 1984-74 .
Finally, none of the interest paid on .the short-term debt was included in gross income or deducted as an expense by Mr .
Russell or Mr . Kopsen . For these reasons, the short-term debt is best characterized as a series of loans from RGC Partnership to MRRC . The issuanc of the short-term debt did not constitute an economic outlay by MRRC's shareholders, and did not create basis .in MRRC stock .
In-reaching our oldings herein, we have considered all arguments made, and, o the extent not mentioned above, we conclude they are moo , irrelevant, or without merit .
To reflect the f regoing, Decision will be entered under Rule 155 .in docket Nos .
4425-05, 4456-05, and 4688-05
Ask CiteLaw's AI Navigator anything about this case, check whether it is still good law, and see every case that cites it. Sign up for CiteLaw free today to get started.