BERNARD J. LIEBMANN AND MARY M. LIEBMANN, APPELLANTS,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that taxpayers were not entitled to a business bad debt deduction for loans and guarantee to a wholly owned corporation.
Taxpayers sought a business bad debt deduction for loans and a guarantee to Bernard Liebmann's wholly owned corporation. The tax court denied the dedu…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Dominant Motive Test cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Taxpayers, Bernard and Mary Liebmann, appeal from a ruling of the tax court sustaining the Commissioner’s determination of $4,456 in income tax deficiencies in their joint returns for 1973 and 1974. The tax court ruled that taxpayers were not entitled to a business bad debt deduction because of the worthlessness of loans made by Bernard J. Liebmann to his wholly owned corporation, or for payments on a bank loan to that corporation assumed by Liebmann as guarantor. Taxpayers on appeal assert that the tax court was clearly erroneous in finding that Bernard Liebmann’s dominant motive for the loans and guarantee was not the salary he drew as an employee of the corporation but, rather, his interest as an investor in the corporation. Haying reviewed the record, we determine that substantial credible evidence supports the tax court’s findings.
Accordingly, the opinion of the tax court must be sustained for the reasons set forth in its decision. 39 T.C.M. (CCH) 248 (1979), 10 Fed. Taxes (P-H) ¶ 79,399.
Affirmed.