                        T.C. Memo. 2011-147



                      UNITED STATES TAX COURT



          JOHN C. AND MARGARET T. RAMIG, Petitioners v.
           COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 29149-08.               Filed June 27, 2011.



     Kevin O’Connell and Katherine de la Forest (specially

recognized), for petitioners.

     John D. Davis and Katherine Caballero, for respondent.



             MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION


     MORRISON, Judge:   On September 5, 2008, respondent (the

“IRS”) issued petitioners a notice of deficiency for tax years

2004 and 2005.   The notice stated that the IRS (i) determined
                               - 2 -

deficiencies in tax of $953 for 2004 and $22,1141 for 2005 and

(ii) determined that the Ramigs were liable for penalties under

section 6662(a)2 of $190.60 for 2004 and $4,442.80 for 2005.    The

Ramigs timely filed a petition disputing these determinations; on

the date of filing, they were Oregon residents.

     The Ramigs claim they are entitled to the following

deductions:   (i) $8,781 for 2004 for expenses of a rental

property; (ii) $6,719.43 for 2004 and $6,573.58 for 2005 for

legal expenses; and (iii) $46,131.40 for 2005 for the

worthlessness of purported loans.   We find that the Ramigs are

entitled to the deductions for legal expenses but not for the

rental property expenses or the worthlessness of the purported

loans.




     1
      The notice of deficiency and its attached explanation are
inconsistent as to the amount of the deficiency in tax for 2005.
The first page of the notice states that the deficiency is
$22,114. But the attached explanation states that the deficiency
is $22,214. The Ramigs do not assert that this error means that
$22,114 is the upper bound of the deficiency we can decide in
this proceeding. In any event, because we find the Ramigs are
entitled to deductions disallowed by the notice of deficiency,
the deficiency we decide will be less than $22,114.
     2
      Unless otherwise indicated, section references are to the
Internal Revenue Code, as amended, effective during the years at
issue, and Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice
and Procedure.
                                   - 3 -

                             FINDINGS OF FACT

       The parties stipulated some facts; those facts are so found.

       John C. Ramig3 is an attorney; he is licensed in Oregon.

After graduating from the University of Virginia Law School in

1984, he worked in government affairs for a law firm in

Washington, D.C.       Four years later, he moved his practice to the

firm’s Portland office and after two more years to another

Portland law firm, continuing there until 1995.

       Ramig is also an entrepreneur.      He left law-firm life in

1995 to form a startup company named Footwear Specialties

International, which did business as Nautilus Footwear.        Ramig

was a minority owner of Nautilus and its chief executive officer.

He continued with Nautilus until 2000, when, as did many

entrepreneurs of the time, he looked to cyberspace.

       Together with other managers from Nautilus and a firm

specializing in new internet businesses, Ramig formed shoeS4Work,

Inc.       He was chief executive officer, a board member, and a

minority shareholder.       A “Key Employee Agreement” governed his

work as chief executive officer and provided for a $150,000

annual salary.

       ShoeS4Work had two stock classes:      common and preferred.

The preferred stock had a dividend preference and voting rights.


       3
      The issues here involve John C. Ramig’s activities. We
refer to John C. and Margaret T. Ramig collectively as “the
Ramigs” and refer to John C. Ramig as “Ramig”.
                               - 4 -

By March 2002 there were 144,126 shares of common stock and

1,417,391 shares of preferred stock outstanding.   Ramig held

40,000 shares of common stock directly, and he was a one-third

owner of an entity named ShoNovation, which held 44,000 shares of

common stock.   He held no preferred stock.

     ShoeS4Work’s creators tried to use the internet to sell

safety footwear--mainly steel-toe shoes.   One of the company’s

strategies was to provide safety information on its website to

attract customers.   It is unclear whether shoeS4Work sold to

employers or directly to workers.

     The beginning of the millennium was not an easy time for

internet companies, and shoeS4Work was no exception.   From the

start it constantly needed more capital.   Although it raised

nearly $1.5 million, at times it lacked the cash for payroll and

other expenses.

     In 2001 and 2002 Ramig made seven purported loans to

shoeS4Work.   The record contains seven promissory notes, each

corresponding to one of the purported loans.   It also contains

eight checks documenting the payment of the proceeds of the

supposed loans.4   Most of the checks had the printed notation




     4
      There are eight checks and only seven notes because for one
note, dated Aug. 10, 2001, there are two checks, which add up to
the amount shown on the note. See table infra.
                                - 5 -

“Loan” on the memo line.5    Each note called for 12 percent

interest and gave a date on which the note was immediately due

and collectible.   Only two of the seven notes were signed.      Ramig

signed those two notes as shoeS4Work’s president and chief

executive officer.   Ramig testified that he made the seven

purported loans “in anticipation of being able to raise the

capital to repay [himself] at some point in the future.”       He

testified that shoeS4Work repaid the first three notes (dated

January 22, April 20, and May 1, 2001), which totaled $57,000,

but did not repay the last four notes (dated July 20, August 10,

and August 13, 2001, and March 5, 2002), which totaled $29,600.

Besides Ramig’s testimony that the first three loans were repaid,

there is no other evidence of repayment.    Under the

circumstances, it is peculiar that Ramig did not have

documentation from either his files or the files of shoeS4Work to

corroborate his testimony.    This leads to the conclusion that

shoeS4Work did not repay any of the loans.    The following table

summarizes the seven purported loans:




     5
      For one of the eight checks (No. 3665 for $15,000 dated
July 23, 2001), the memo line is blank. For two others (No. 3809
for $3,000 dated Mar. 5, 2002, and No. 3556 for $5,000 dated Jan.
22, 2001), the memo line contains the notation “Loan”, but it is
handwritten, not printed.
                                       - 6 -

   Note      Note    Maturity     Note    Supposedly   Check    Check    Check
   Date     Amount     Date      Signed     Repaid      No.    Amount    Date

1/22/2001   $5,000 10/31/2001     No           Yes     3556    $5,000   1/22/2001
4/20/2001    2,000 10/31/2001     No           Yes     3592     2,000   4/20/2001
5/01/2001   50,000 10/31/2001     Yes          Yes     3604    50,000   5/02/2001
7/20/2001   15,000 10/31/2001     No           No      3665    15,000   7/23/2001
8/10/2001    6,600 10/31/2001     No           No      3674     6,000   8/10/2001
                                                       3675       600   8/10/2001

8/13/2001    5,000 10/31/2001     No           No      3676     5,000   8/13/2001
3/05/2002    3,000   3/15/2002    Yes          No      3809     3,000   3/05/2002


     Ramig paid some of shoeS4Work’s operating expenses, which

included postage, office supplies, and some inventory purchases,

with his credit card.      The expenses totaled $11,273.60.6            The

Ramigs claim that the payments were loans to shoeS4Work and that

it had repaid similar past advances.            But the record includes no

documents substantiating that shoeS4Work either had agreed to

repay the $11,273.60 or had repaid similar amounts in the past.




     6
      The Ramigs claim that the total is $11,331.40. But the
amounts Ramig testified he paid on shoeS4Work’s behalf add up to
$11,273.60, $57.80 less than the Ramigs assert. We therefore
find that the payments totaled $11,273.60.

     We also note that one of Ramig’s credit-card statements
shows a credit from Kingston McKnight--an inventory supplier for
shoeS4Work--for $41.80. Although Ramig testified that other
entries on the credit-card statement for Kingston McKnight
reflected advances of funds to shoesS4Work, he did not testify
about the $41.80 entry. The IRS did not present any evidence--or
any argument--that the total should be reduced by the $41.80
entry. Because the parties do not address this credit, we do not
include it in the $11,273.60 that we find Ramig paid by credit
card.
                               - 7 -

     ShoeS4Work stopped operations in August 2002.   It was unable

to raise enough capital and never achieved profitability.     Soon

afterward, it liquidated most of its tangible assets including

storage racks, inventory, and miscellaneous equipment.   It used

the proceeds to pay suppliers, but it did not pay Ramig.

     The Ramigs claim that they made two other sets of payments

connected with shoeS4Work.   Between December 2002 and May 2005,

they made payments to Puget Sound Leasing totaling $2,500.7     And

they claim to have paid General Motors Acceptance Corporation

$2,500.

     Shortly before shoeS4Work shut down, investor Jeannie Lay

and her wholly owned company, Hecate, LLC, sued shoeS4Work.     Her

amended complaint named Ramig, shoeS4Work, and five other members

of its board of directors as codefendants.   She alleged that

Ramig made misrepresentations to persuade her to invest in

shoeS4Work and that shoeS4Work’s board failed to supervise Ramig


     7
      The record includes 13 canceled checks to Puget Sound
Leasing totaling $2,500. The IRS asserts that the Ramigs paid
Puget Sound Leasing $2,500. The Ramigs assert in their reply
brief that the correct total is $2,700, but this assertion is
unsupported.

     The parties stipulated the admissibility--but not the
accuracy--of a spreadsheet, which is undated and does not reflect
its authorship. The spreadsheet lists 14 checks purportedly
written by the Ramigs to Puget Sound Leasing totaling $2,600.
Check No. 4515--dated Jan. 24, 2005, for $100--appears on the
spreadsheet but is not in evidence.

     We find that the Ramigs paid $2,500 on the basis of the
canceled checks in evidence.
                                - 8 -

adequately.   Ramig prevailed in the suit but incurred legal fees,

including $6,719.43 in 2004 and $6,573.58 in 2005.

     ShoeS4Work sold its remaining assets in March 2004.        The

buyer, SR Footwear, a company in which Ramig was a minority

owner, bought a few remaining tangible items and the major

intangible assets such as two domain names; supplier agreements;

and the shoeS4Work website, brand name, customer list, telephone

numbers, and corporate records.   The agreement contained a list

of persons with liens on shoeS4Work’s assets, but Ramig’s name

did not appear on the list.

     In exchange for the assets, SR Footwear agreed to make

contingent payments to shoeS4Work.      For every month in which SR

Footwear sold 5,000 or more pairs, it was to pay shoeS4Work 50

cents for each pair sold that month.      Payment was to continue on

these terms up to $100,000.

     To operate SR Footwear, Ramig helped find two young

executives, Andrew Macklin and Jason Lacey.      The two men had

degrees in mechanical engineering.      Lacey had worked as a

consultant at Accenture and at a startup named Greenwood

Resources; Macklin had worked at General Electric.      The two men

handled finances, marketing, and day-to-day operations.

     SR Footwear focused on different shoes and different

customers.    It sold primarily slip-resistant safety shoes, hence
                                - 9 -

the name, SR Footwear.    And instead of industrial workers, it

sold primarily to hospitality and food-service workers.

     SR Footwear reached agreements with a number of restaurant

and coffeehouse franchises to sell shoes to their employees.      The

employees could go to an SR Footwear website customized for the

employer where they could place orders for shoes and pay through

payroll withholding.

     As it turned out, however, getting access to employees and

getting those employees to buy were different problems.     SR

Footwear’s sales never reached the 5,000-pair threshold necessary

to trigger a payment to shoeS4Work.     For that matter, the company

never made a profit.

     Lacey and Macklin saw two solutions to the lagging sales.

First, they felt SR Footwear needed more marketing.    And second,

they felt it needed to have a lower priced private-label shoe.

They looked to the company’s investors for more capital to

address these issues.    The investors, however, balked.   And in

response, the two men left:    Lacey in October 2005 and Macklin in

April 2006.

     On leaving, neither man held much hope for the company’s

future.   The investors had been clear that they would not supply

the capital Lacey and Macklin felt SR Footwear needed.     And the

investors replaced them with one person, who both men felt was
                                - 10 -

unqualified.   Ramig agreed with Lacey and Macklin’s evaluation

and believed their exit sealed the company’s fate.

     After Lacey and Macklin’s departure, events surrounding SR

Footwear are unclear; but by trial, it had stopped operations.

     In 2004 Ramig returned to the practice of law as an employee

of a Portland law firm.   Although in the past Ramig had received

law-firm salaries through his wholly owned professional

corporation, John C. Ramig, P.C., in 2004 and 2005 he received

his law firm salary directly.

     Meanwhile, during 2004 and 2005, Ramig apparently continued

to own another company, Garfield Holdings, LLC, which in turn

apparently owned a rental property in Arlington, Virginia.

     Although the Ramigs’ returns for 2004 and 2005 say that they

were self-prepared, they were not.       The Ramigs had John Ramig’s

bookkeeper prepare their returns.    The bookkeeper was not a

certified public accountant; Ramig originally hired her merely to

enter information into accounting software.      One mistake the

bookkeeper made is relevant here:    she did not report the

purported rental-property expenses on the first page of the Form

1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, for 2004.      Because of

this error, the expenses did not affect the taxable income and

tax liability reported by the Ramigs.

     On September 5, 2008, the IRS issued a notice of deficiency

for tax years 2004 and 2005.    The IRS determined deficiencies in
                              - 11 -

tax of $953 for 2004 and $22,1148 for 2005.   The IRS also

determined that the Ramigs were liable for penalties under

section 6662(a) of $190.60 for 2004 and $4,442.80 for 2005.

                             OPINION

I.   Deductions

     The parties dispute three deduction issues.   First, for 2004

the Ramigs now claim they are entitled to deduct $8,781 for

expenses of the rental property in Arlington, Virginia.      The

Ramigs did not claim the $8,781 on their return, mention it in

the petition, or mention it in their pretrial memorandum.

Second, the Ramigs claim that they are entitled to deduct legal

expenses of $6,719.43 for 2004 and $6,573.58 for 2005.    And

third, for 2005 the Ramigs claim that they are entitled to deduct

under section 166 the following amounts for worthless debts:

(i) $29,600 for the unpaid principal of four purported promissory

notes, (ii) $11,331.40 for expenses paid by credit card,9 (iii)

$2,500 they purportedly paid to General Motors Acceptance

Corporation, and (iv) $2,700 paid to Puget Sound Leasing.10        As we

explain below, the Ramigs are entitled to deduct the legal

expenses but not the other disputed items.


     8
      See supra note 1.
     9
      The Ramigs, however, paid only $11,273.60, not $11,331.40.
See supra note 6.
     10
      The Ramigs, however, paid only $2,500 to Puget Sound
Leasing. See supra note 7.
                                - 12 -

     A.   Burden of Proof

     The Ramigs have the burden of proving that they are entitled

to the disputed deductions.     Generally, the taxpayer has the

burden of proving that the determinations in the notice of

deficiency are wrong.     Rule 142(a)(1); Welch v. Helvering, 290

U.S. 111, 115 (1933).     Section 7491(a)(1) shifts the burden of

proof to the IRS if the taxpayer satisfies the conditions in

section 7491(a)(2) and introduces credible evidence on factual

issues relevant to the taxpayer’s liability for a tax under

subtitle A or B.    A taxpayer bears the burden of proving that the

conditions in section 7491(a)(2) are satisfied.     See Higbee v.

Commissioner, 116 T.C. 438, 440–441 (2001).     Because the Ramigs

have neither contended nor adduced evidence that they satisfied

these conditions, section 7491(a)(1) does not shift the burden of

proof to the IRS.

     B.   The Ramigs Are Not Entitled To Deduct Rental-Property
          Expenses for 2004.

     The Ramigs claim that they are entitled to deduct $8,781 for

the expenses of a rental property, which they say they held

through Garfield Holdings, LLC.     They did not claim the deduction

on the appropriate place on their return.     Nor did they raise the

issue with the IRS at the administrative level, identify the

issue in their petition, or move for leave to amend their

petition under Rule 41.    Because the Ramigs neither raised the

issue in their petition nor moved for leave to amend their
                               - 13 -

petition, we do not consider their entitlement to the rental-

property expense deduction.   See Rule 34(b)(4) (stating that

taxpayers must include in their petitions “Clear and concise

assignments of each and every error which [they allege] to have

been committed by the Commissioner in the determination of the

deficiency or liability” and that “Any issue not raised in the

assignments of error shall be deemed to be conceded”); see also

Funk v. Commissioner, 123 T.C. 213, 215-216 (2004).     Our refusal

to consider the issue is particularly justified because the issue

is factual and the Ramigs first told the IRS they would raise it

the day before trial.   See Estate of Mandels v. Commissioner, 64

T.C. 61, 73 (1975) (stating that refusing to hear an issue was

especially justified because it was a factual issue and the IRS

was not aware of it until trial).

     The Ramigs claimed that the following sentence in the

petition raises the issue:    “Petitioners’ [sic] further request

that this Court grant such relief as the Court deems fit and

appropriate herein.”    The Ramigs’ counsel described the sentence

as “a catch-all phrase”, which he “always put[s] * * * in.”     It

is not, however, a “clear and concise assignment” of an error by

the IRS with respect to the $8,781 deduction.   See Rule 34(b)(4).

And it does not “enable ascertainment of the issues”.    See Rule

34(a)(1).
                               - 14 -

     The Ramigs also argue that the IRS was not prejudiced

because their Schedule E, Supplemental Income and Loss, reflected

the rental-property expenses on line 22.   Although they concede

that their bookkeeper erred by failing to carry the amount over

to the first page of their Form 1040, they argue that the IRS

should have realized that the bookkeeper made a mistake.   But the

Ramigs not only failed to report that the expenses affected their

tax liability; they failed to assert such a claim in audit or on

appeal, and neither their petition nor their pretrial memorandum

describes the issue.   Understandably, IRS counsel was unprepared

to litigate the issue at trial.

     We will not consider the rental-property expense deduction

for 2004:   the Ramigs did not plead the issue and raised it for

the first time at trial.

     C.     The Ramigs Are Entitled To Deduct the Legal Fees Under
            Section 162(a).

     The Ramigs claim that they are entitled to deduct, as

ordinary and necessary business expenses, legal fees of $6,719.43

for 2004 and $6,573.58 for 2005.   These were the fees Ramig

incurred to defend himself from a lawsuit by disgruntled

shoeS4Work investor Jeannie Lay.   The IRS argues that the suit

was against Ramig personally--not as chief executive officer of

shoeS4Work--and that the expenses of defending the suit were

therefore unrelated to the conduct of a trade or business.     As we

explain, the Ramigs are entitled to the deductions.
                               - 15 -

       Section 162(a) allows taxpayers to deduct “all the ordinary

and necessary expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year

in carrying on any trade or business”.    Performing services as an

employee can be a trade or business within the meaning of section

162.    See, e.g., Biehl v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 467, 477-478

(2002), affd. 351 F.3d 982 (9th Cir. 2003).     A taxpayer may

deduct litigation expenses incurred in defending a lawsuit if the

suit “arises in connection with” or “proximately result[s] from”

the taxpayer’s business.    United States v. Gilmore, 372 U.S. 39,

47-48 (1963).    So the question is whether the legal fees arose

from Ramig’s business of performing services as an employee.

       The basic test of whether legal fees incurred in defending a

lawsuit arose from a taxpayer’s business depends on whether the

underlying legal claim originated from that business.       O’Malley

v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 352, 361-362 (1988).    If the legal claim

arose from the taxpayer’s business, the legal fees are deductible

regardless of whether the taxpayer was still conducting that

business when the fees were incurred.    See Ostrom v.

Commissioner, 77 T.C. 608, 613 (1981) (allowing deduction of

expenses paid three years after the business stopped operating).

       The claim against Ramig arose from his business of

performing services for shoeS4Work as an employee.    The complaint

alleged that he, as chief executive officer of shoeS4Work, made

misrepresentations and omitted facts about the company to
                               - 16 -

persuade Ms. Lay to buy shares.   It alleged that the other board

members were liable because they “failed to reasonably,

adequately, and properly supervise” his activities.   In Ostrom v.

Commissioner, supra at 613, we found legal expenses of defending

a claim deductible because the claim arose “from petitioner’s

misrepresentations of the company’s financial status made

while * * * performing his duties as president and general

manager of the company.”   Similarly, we find that the expenses

here are deductible under section 162.

     Thus under section 162, the Ramigs are entitled to deduct

$6,719.43 for 2004 and $6,573.58 for 2005 as expenses of John

Ramig’s business of rendering services to shoeS4Work as an

employee.

     D.     The Ramigs Are Not Entitled to Bad-Debt Deductions.

     The Ramigs claim that they are entitled to deductions for

the worthlessness, in 2005, of the following four categories of

purported debts owed by shoeS4Work to Ramig:   (i) the unpaid

principal of four of the seven purported promissory notes in

evidence, (ii) the expenses Ramig paid by credit card during

2002, (iii) a payment Ramig claims he made to General Motors

Acceptance Corporation, and (iv) the payments Ramig made to Puget

Sound Leasing.

     Section 166(a)(1) allows a deduction against ordinary income

for “debt which becomes worthless within the taxable year.”     But
                               - 17 -

for individual taxpayers, section 166(a) (and therefore section

166(a)(1)) “shall not apply to any nonbusiness debt”.   Sec.

166(d)(1)(A).   Thus individual taxpayers’ nonbusiness debts are

not deductible against ordinary income under section 166(a)(1)

when they become worthless.    Instead, section 166(d)(1)(B) treats

an individual’s worthless nonbusiness debts as short-term capital

losses.   Because we find that the advances were not debts, we

need not determine whether the advances should be considered

business debts (for which a deduction against ordinary income

would be allowed to Ramig) or nonbusiness debts (for which a

capital loss would be allowed to Ramig).

     There is no bad-debt deduction without a bona fide debt.

The regulations define a bona fide debt as one “which arises from

a debtor-creditor relationship based upon a valid and enforceable

obligation to pay a fixed or determinable sum of money.”   Sec.

1.166-1(c), Income Tax Regs.   We determine whether a bona fide

debtor-creditor relationship exists from all the pertinent facts.

Fisher v. Commissioner, 54 T.C. 905, 909 (1970).

     The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, to which appeal

of this case will lie,11 has listed the following factors for

determining whether an advance to a corporation gives rise to a


     11
      Appeal of this case will be to the Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit, unless the parties otherwise agree. See sec.
7482(b)(1) and (2). We follow the law of the Court of Appeals to
which an appeal will lie. Golsen v. Commissioner, 54 T.C. 742,
757 (1970), affd. 445 F.2d 985 (10th Cir. 1971).
                              - 18 -

bona fide debt as opposed to an equity investment:   (i) the

labels on the documents evidencing the (supposed) indebtedness,

(ii) the presence or absence of a maturity date, (iii) the source

of payment, (iv) the right of the (supposed) lender to enforce

payment, (v) the lender’s right to participate in management,

(vi) the lender’s right to collect compared to the regular

corporate creditors, (vii) the parties’ intent, (viii) the

adequacy of the (supposed) borrower’s capitalization, (ix)

whether stockholders’ advances to the corporation are in the same

proportion as their equity ownership in the corporation, (x) the

payment of interest out of only “dividend money”, and (xi) the

borrower’s ability to obtain loans from outside lenders.     A.R.

Lantz Co. v. United States, 424 F.2d 1330, 1333 (9th Cir. 1970)

(citing O.H. Kruse Grain & Milling v. Commissioner, 279 F.2d 123,

125-126 (9th Cir. 1960), affg. T.C. Memo. 1959-110).    The list is

not exclusive.   See Welch v. Commissioner, 204 F.3d 1228, 1230

(9th Cir. 2000), affg. T.C. Memo. 1998-121.   And no factor is

determinative.   See id.; see also John Kelley Co. v.

Commissioner, 326 U.S. 521, 530 (1946) (“There is no one

characteristic, not even exclusion from management, which can be

said to be decisive in the determination of whether the

obligations are risk investments * * * or debts.”); A.R. Lantz

Co. v. United States, supra at 1333 (“When a lower court has

overemphasized one of these factors, * * * [the Court of Appeals
                               - 19 -

for the Ninth Circuit] has consistently been disposed to

reverse.”).

          1.     The Ramigs Are Not Entitled to a Deduction for the
                 Unpaid Principal of the Purported Promissory
                 Notes.

     The Ramigs gave evidence of seven purported loans from Ramig

to shoeS4Work.    They claim a bad-debt deduction of $29,600 for

the unpaid principal of the last four purported loans Ramig made

to shoeS4Work.    Those four purported loans were:   (i) the $15,000

purported loan, made on July 20, 2001; (ii) the $6,600 purported

loan, made on August 10, 2001; (iii) the $5,000 purported loan,

made on August 13, 2001; and (iv) the $3,000 purported loan, made

on March 5, 2002.

     The Ramigs have shown that John Ramig advanced the $29,600

to shoeS4Work.    They introduced canceled checks for the advances

from Ramig to shoeS4Work.

     Having concluded that Ramig advanced the money, we turn to

whether those advances gave rise to a bona fide debtor-creditor

relationship.    In doing so, we apply the factors listed by the

Ninth Circuit in A.R. Lantz Co. v. United States, 424 F.2d at

1333, and we conclude that the advances were an equity

investment.12




     12
      The Ramigs did not argue that--and thus we do not consider
whether--the advances were deductible other than as bad-debt
deductions.
                                - 20 -

     It is a sign of equity if the purported borrowing

corporation is so thinly capitalized at the time of an advance

that a business loss would make it unable to repay (the eighth

factor).   Hardman v. United States, 827 F.2d 1409, 1414 (9th Cir.

1987); Bauer v. Commissioner, 748 F.2d 1365, 1369 (9th Cir.

1984), revg. T.C. Memo. 1983-120.    As the record does not reflect

shoeS4Work’s capitalization at the time of the advances, we

consider this factor neutral.

     Because of its financial condition, we believe shoeS4Work

was unable to get outside financing (the eleventh factor), which

suggests an equity investment.    See Am. Offshore, Inc. v.

Commissioner, 97 T.C. 579, 605 (1991) (citing Curry v. United

States, 396 F.2d 630, 634 (5th Cir. 1968)) (stating that it

suggests a bona fide debt if a corporation could have borrowed

money from an outside lender at the time of an advance); see also

Segel v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 816, 828 (1987) (“the touchstone

of economic reality is whether an outside lender would have made

the payments in the same form and on the same terms”).     The

Ramigs did not present evidence that shoeS4Work could have

borrowed money from outside lenders.     Because of the Ramigs’

failure to produce such evidence, shoeS4Work’s failure to find

more investors, and shoeS4Work’s failing financial condition, we

think it unlikely shoeS4Work could have borrowed the money from

an outside lender.   This factor therefore indicates equity.
                                - 21 -

     The expected source by which shoeS4Work was to repay Ramig

(the third factor) suggests that the advances were equity.     In

Am. Offshore, Inc. v. Commissioner, supra at 602, we found that

the source of payments suggested the investment was equity

because the parties appeared to expect repayment only if the

purported borrower was financially able to do so and the

purported borrower showed steady losses from operations along

with steadily declining inventory and assets.      Here the parties

expected repayment only if shoeS4Work raised more capital.     And,

as in Am. Offshore, Inc., shoeS4Work was on a downward track with

a history of steady losses.

     More importantly, the parties’ treatment of the advances

suggests equity investment.     Equity participants take a

subordinate position to creditors regarding payment on

liquidation:     they get paid last.   Hardman v. United States,

supra at 1413.    So taking a subordinate position to other

creditors (the sixth factor) may suggest that the purported

lender is really an equity investor.     See CMA Consol., Inc. v.

Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-16.      The notes say neither that

they are senior nor that they are junior to other obligations.

But Ramig did not demand timely repayment and thus treated his

claim as subordinate to the rights of the creditors that were

paid first.    See Inductotherm Indus., Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C.

Memo. 1984-281 (finding that a similar failure cast doubt on the
                               - 22 -

original intent to create a debtor-creditor relationship), affd.

without published opinion 770 F.2d 1071 (3d Cir. 1985).    If a

purported lender is to be paid interest out of only “dividend

money” (the tenth factor), it indicates equity.    And if the

supposed lender subsequently fails to insist on the remittance of

interest payments when due, it suggests that, at the time of the

advance, the supposed lender expected repayment from so-called

dividend money.    See Am. Offshore, Inc. v. Commissioner, supra at

605.    The Ramigs gave no evidence that shoeS4Work ever paid

interest or that Ramig ever requested that shoeS4Work actually

pay interest.    “[A] true lender is concerned with interest.”

Curry v. United States, 396 F.2d at 634 (5th Cir. 1968).    And

Ramig has shown no such concern.

       Three factors point to characterizing the advances as debt

but are entitled to little weight under the circumstances.

First, it is a sign of debt if the documents are enforceable (the

fourth factor).    CMA Consol., Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.

2005-16 (citing Estate of Mixon v. United States, 464 F.2d 394,

405 (5th Cir. 1972)).    But Ramig never tried to enforce the

notes, and three of the four notes for which the Ramigs claim

deductions are unsigned--calling enforceability in question.

Second, the purported promissory notes have fixed maturity dates13


       13
      A “maturity date” is “The date when a debt falls due, such
as a debt on a promissory note or bond.” Black’s Law Dictionary
                                                   (continued...)
                                - 23 -

(the second factor), indicating debt.     See Hardman v. United

States, 827 F.2d at 1413.     But Ramig and shoeS4Work completely

ignored the dates; we give this factor the same weight they did.

Third, the documents’ labels (the first factor) suggest debt.

See id. at 1412 (stating that a debenture or note suggests debt).

But the labels are mere formalities chosen by Ramig, who was on

both sides of the transaction.     Because the Ramigs have not shown

that these formalities ever had nontax significance, we give them

little weight.

     Two remaining factors point to debt.    The parties’

expressions of intent (the seventh factor) suggest debt.     But

such objective expressions of intent--as opposed to the parties’

true or subjective intent--are “generally not to be afforded

special weight.”     A.R. Lantz Co. v. United States, 424 F.2d at

1333.     Said another way, the objective expression of intent is

merely one factor in determining the parties’ true intent.

Second, the advances in question were not made in proportion to

Ramig’s equity interest (the ninth factor), which suggests debt.

     Evaluating all the facts and circumstances, we conclude that

the advances were equity investments, not loans.     As discussed

above, four factors point to equity investment and five point to




     13
      (...continued)
452 (9th ed. 2009) (defining “date of maturity”).
                               - 24 -

debt.14   But the determination of debt or equity is no mere

counting of factors.    Bauer v. Commissioner, 748 F.2d at 1368

(9th Cir. 1984).   And as we have explained, here three of the

factors that indicate debt are entitled to little weight.      Thus

the other two factors pointing to debt do not outweigh the

factors pointing to equity.   We conclude that the Ramigs did not

show that the advances were bona fide debts and are therefore not

entitled to bad-debt deductions under section 166.

           2.    The Ramigs Are Not Entitled to a Deduction for
                 Payment of Expenses by Credit Card in 2002.

     The second category of purported debt for which the Ramigs

claim bad-debt deductions for 2005 is for expenses Ramig paid by

credit card.15   They claim that although he did not make the

payments directly to shoeS4Work, he incurred these expenses on

the company’s behalf and it agreed to reimburse him.   But they

offered no documents substantiating the agreement to repay.     And

although there can be a valid debt between related parties

“without the formalities of a note”, see Green Leaf Ventures,


     14
      Our discussion does not address the fifth factor, the
purported lender’s right to participate in management, because we
do not have evidence of whether Ramig increased his management
participation because of the advances. See CMA Consol., Inc. v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-16 (stating that an increase in
management participation suggests equity investment). Thus this
factor is neutral.
     15
      The Ramigs assert that they are entitled to a bad-debt
deduction for $11,331.40 of credit card expenditures purportedly
paid on shoeS4Work’s behalf. They have given evidence of only
$11,273.60 of expenses. See supra note 6.
                                - 25 -

Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-155, as we explain below,

the Ramigs did not show that a valid debt existed.

     Several factors related to the purported arrangement’s terms

indicate that the payments were equity, not debt.      First, there

was no repayment date (the second factor), which suggests that

repayment--if expected--was “tied to the fortunes of the

business”, indicating an equity investment.       Hardman v. United

States, 827 F.2d at 1413.   Second, if repayment depends on

earnings or is to come from a restricted source (the third

factor), it suggests equity.    See CMA Consol., Inc. v.

Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-16; see also Calumet Indus., Inc.

v. Commissioner, 95 T.C. 257, 287-288 (1990).      Ramig testified

that shoeS4Work was to pay as “funds were available”, indicating

the payments were equity.   Third, “a true lender is concerned

with interest” (the tenth factor).       Curry v. United States, 396

F.2d at 634 (5th Cir. 1968).    And here we have no indication

Ramig insisted on--or for that matter even requested--interest,

indicating the payments were equity.      Fourth, the Ramigs have

failed to show that Ramig had a right to enforce payment (the

fourth factor), indicating equity.       Cf. Am. Offshore, Inc. v.

Commissioner, 97 T.C. at 603 (“A definite obligation to repay the

advance is an * * * [indicator] of a loan.”).      Fifth, we do not

have documentary evidence of Ramig’s status in relation to other

creditors (the sixth factor).    But again, by never demanding
                              - 26 -

repayment, Ramig effectively subordinated his rights to the

rights of other creditors, indicating equity.   See id.

     As with the purported promissory notes, shoeS4Work’s

financial condition suggests an equity investment.    The Ramigs

gave no evidence that similar loans were available from outside

lenders (the eleventh factor), indicating equity.

     Evaluating all the facts and circumstances, we conclude that

Ramig and shoeS4Work did not have a bona fide debtor-creditor

relationship regarding the credit card payments.    Of the factors

listed by the Ninth Circuit in A.R. Lantz Co. v. United States,

424 F.2d at 1333, only the ninth factor suggests debt:    the

payment of expenses by credit card was not in proportion to

Ramig’s equity interest.   See supra part I.D.1.    The remaining

factors, however, point to equity or are neutral.16    And although

the Ramigs claim shoeS4Work repaid similar past advances, they

did not give evidence--aside from Ramig’s testimony--of either



     16
      The lender’s right to participate in management (the fifth
factor) is neutral because, again, we do not have evidence of
whether Ramig increased his management participation after the
advances. See supra note 14. The parties’ objective expression
of intent (the seventh factor), is also neutral. The only
expression of intent about these payments is Ramig’s testimony.
In Am. Offshore, Inc. v. Commissioner, 97 T.C. 579 (1991), we
found that the taxpayer’s mere statements that the parties
intended the advances to be loans were not enough to persuade us
that this factor suggested debt. Id. at 604. We do not have
evidence of shoeS4Work’s capitalization (the eighth factor). See
supra part I.D.1. And the first factor, the labels on the
documents, is neutral because there are no loan documents. See
Am. Offshore, Inc. v. Commissioner, supra at 602.
                              - 27 -

past repayments or similar past advances.    Because they did not

show a genuine debtor-creditor relationship, the Ramigs are not

entitled to a deduction under section 166.

          3.   The Ramigs Are Not Entitled to a Deduction for
               Payment to General Motors Acceptance Corporation.

     The third category of purported debt for which the Ramigs

claim bad-debt deductions is a debt, supposedly owed by

shoeS4Work to the Ramigs, arising from the Ramigs’ purported

payment of $2,500 to General Motors Acceptance Corporation.    The

only evidence that the payment was made was Ramig’s testimony.

     We reject his testimony for two reasons.   First, no other

evidence corroborates the testimony.   Second, the Ramigs’ brief

contradicts the testimony.   Ramig testified that shoeS4Work

bought a van to make deliveries in the Portland area and that

after shoeS4Work failed, he found out that he was responsible for

the payments and sold the van.   He testified that the $2,500 is

the difference between “the amount that was due under the

purchase contract” and the sale proceeds.    The Ramigs’ brief, on

the other hand, states that this payment is related to a lease.

     Thus we conclude that the Ramigs did not pay the $2,500, and

the Ramigs have therefore failed to demonstrate the existence of

a bona fide debtor-creditor relationship.
                              - 28 -

           4.   The Ramigs Are Not Entitled to a Deduction for
                Payments to Puget Sound Leasing.

     The final category of purported debt for which the Ramigs

claim a bad-debt deduction in 2005 supposedly arose from Ramig’s

payments to Puget Sound Leasing.   Ramig paid Puget Sound Leasing

$2,500 between December 2002 and May 2005.    The Ramigs claim that

he paid these amounts as guarantor of shoeS4Work’s equipment

leases.

     Section 1.166-9, Income Tax Regs., generally treats payments

in discharge of part or all of a taxpayer’s obligations under a

guaranty agreement as debts becoming worthless in the year of

payment.   See sec. 1.166-9(a), Income Tax Regs. (applying to

agreements made in the course of the taxpayer’s trade or

business); sec. 1.166-9(b), Income Tax Regs. (applying to

agreements not made in the course of the taxpayer’s trade or

business).   The taxpayer must, however, demonstrate that the

payment was in discharge of an obligation as a guarantor.      See

Brodsky v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-240.

     The Ramigs did not show that the $2,500 was paid to

discharge an obligation as a guarantor.   The canceled checks

substantiate that Ramig paid $2,500 to Puget Sound Leasing, but

not that he paid under a guaranty agreement.    Three of the

thirteen checks refer to shoeS4Work in the memo line, but the

notations are inconsistent with each other:    one says “Loan to

S4W”, one says “S4W”, and one says “Payment of S4W Lease”.      And
                                - 29 -

the Ramigs neither offered the agreement into evidence nor

attempted to explain its absence.    Considering all the evidence,

they have not shown that the payments were in discharge of an

obligation as a guarantor.

      The Ramigs are therefore not entitled to deduct the $2,500

paid to Puget Sound Leasing.

II.   Penalties

      A.   Burden of Proof

      The IRS has the burden of producing evidence that taxpayers

are liable for penalties.    Sec. 7491(c).   The IRS satisfies its

burden by producing “sufficient evidence indicating that it is

appropriate to impose the relevant penalty.”     Higbee v.

Commissioner, 116 T.C. at 446.    Once the IRS satisfies its burden

of production, taxpayers have the burden of persuading the fact

finder that they are not liable for the penalty.     Id. at 446-447.

The taxpayer bears the burdens of production and proof as to

whether an exception to the penalty applies.    See id. at 446

(stating that the IRS “need not introduce evidence regarding

reasonable cause, substantial authority, or similar provisions”).

      B.   The Ramigs Are Liable for the Accuracy-Related Penalty
           Under Section 6662(a).

      Section 6662(a) imposes a penalty equal to 20 percent of the

part of an underpayment attributable to (i) negligence or

disregard of rules or regulations or (ii) a substantial

understatement of income tax.    Sec. 6662(a) and (b)(1) and (2).
                               - 30 -

The IRS determined that the Ramigs were liable for penalties

under section 6662(a).   Because we find that the Ramigs’

underpayment is attributable to negligence or disregard of rules

or regulations, we do not address whether it is also attributable

to a substantial understatement of income tax.

     Negligence, for section 6662 purposes, is the lack of due

care or the failure to do what a reasonably prudent person would

do under like circumstances.   Hofstetter v. Commissioner, 98 T.C.

695, 704 (1992); Neely v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 934, 947 (1985).

And negligence includes failing “to make a reasonable attempt to

comply with the provisions of the internal revenue laws”.   Sec.

1.6662-3(b)(1), Income Tax Regs.; see also sec. 6662(c).

     The IRS has met its burden of production for negligence.

The Ramigs had an unlicensed bookkeeper prepare their 2004 and

2005 returns, and when asked whether he believed the returns were

accurate when he signed them--as self-prepared--Ramig testified

that he merely assumed that they were accurate.   He relied on his

bookkeeper and made no effort to verify that the returns complied

with “the provisions of the internal revenue laws”.   See sec.

1.6662-3(b)(1), Income Tax Regs.   The Ramigs’ minimal effort to

ensure compliance is far less than what a reasonably prudent

person would do under like circumstances.   Thus the IRS has given

sufficient evidence that it is appropriate to impose the section

6662(a) penalty on the entire underpayment for each year.
                               - 31 -

     The section 6662(a) penalty has several exceptions.   A

position with a reasonable basis is not due to negligence.     Sec.

1.6662-3(b)(1), Income Tax Regs.   And no penalty is imposed on a

part of the underpayment if the taxpayer (i) had reasonable cause

for and (ii) acted in good faith regarding that part of the

underpayment.   See sec. 6664(c); sec. 1.6664-4, Income Tax Regs.

     The Ramigs have failed to prove that they are not liable for

the section 6662(a) penalty.   And they have neither argued nor

offered evidence that an exception excuses them from the penalty.

We therefore uphold the IRS’s determination that the Ramigs are

liable for the section 6662(a) penalty of 20 percent of the

underpayments for 2004 and 2005.

III. Summary

     The Ramigs are entitled to deduct legal expenses of

$6,719.43 for 2004 and $6,573.58 for 2005.   They are not entitled

to bad-debt deductions for (i) the advances paid to shoeS4Work

related to the purported promissory notes because they failed to

show a genuine debtor-creditor relationship; (ii) the credit card

expenditures because they failed to show a genuine debtor-

creditor relationship; (iii) the amount purportedly paid to

General Motors Acceptance Corporation because they failed to show
                             - 32 -

that they paid the amount; and (iv) the amounts paid to Puget

Sound Leasing because they failed to substantiate that the

payments were in discharge of Ramig’s obligation as a guarantor.

     The Ramigs are liable for the section 6662(a) penalty for

each year.

     To reflect the foregoing,


                                        Decision will be entered

                                   under Rule 155.
