Howard S. Bugbee v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
34 T.C.M. 291 (1975)
- Written by Bradley Marzola, JD
Facts
Howard S. Bugbee (plaintiff) operated a beer parlor in California. In 1957, Bugbee met Paul Billings, a customer at the beer parlor. The two became friends and often discussed possible business ventures for Billings to pursue. Bugbee believed that Billings could successfully pursue some of these ventures and began loaning money to Billings. Between September 1958 and December 1960, Bugbee loaned Billings a total of $19,750 represented by 11 different notes. The notes were unconditional and unsecured. They indicated an interest rate of about six percent. However, Billings never paid interest or repaid any part of the principal. During the period when Bugbee loaned Billings money, Billings had little money and was unemployed. Although Bugbee expected Billings to pay him back after one of his business ventures became successful, repayment was not predicated on Billings’ success. At trial, Billings acknowledged that the loan was personal and he had an obligation to repay it regardless of his success. In 1967, Bugbee requested several times that Billings repay the money, but Billings did not. On his tax return for 1966, Bugbee reported a bad debt to Billings and claimed the $19,750 as a short-term capital loss. The Commissioner (defendant) disallowed the bad debt deduction on the grounds that Bugbee had not established that a debtor-creditor relationship existed between Bugbee and Billings.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Sterrett, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 803,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.