Mixing with Mixon: 13 Factors for Identifying Debt versus Equity

By Rob Sanders, CFA, CFE

Companies control and benefit from assets. The assets are financed through advances of debt (borrowing) or equity (owner contributions).[1] Disputes can arise as to the character of a transaction as debt or equity, requiring a comprehensive analysis to resolve.

Why does it matter whether a transaction is debt or equity? Reasons include differences in tax treatment, priority of claim in bankruptcy, and level of control in the company.

When we are asked to help with the debt or equity determination as analysts, we often look to the seminal case Mixon Estate v. United States (5th Circuit, 1972).[2] In the Mixon Case, the court considered 13 different factors (the “Mixon Factors”), which are listed in the table below. The factors do not all carry equal weight, nor is any single factor controlling.

Mixon Factors
1 The names given to the certificates evidencing the indebtedness
2 The presence or absence of a fixed maturity date
3 The source of payments
4 The right to enforce payment of principal and interest
5 Participation in management flowing as a result
6 The status of the contribution in relation to regular corporate creditors
7 The intent of the parties
8 “Thin” or adequate capitalization
9 Identity of interest between creditor and stockholder
10 Source of interest payments
11 The ability of the corporation to obtain loans from outside lending institutions
12 The extent to which the advance was used to acquire capital assets
13 The failure of the debtor to repay on the due date or to seek a postponement


The analyst considers each of the Mixon Factors as applied to the specific facts and circumstances of the matter. The table below includes some examples.

Factor Example indicating:
Debt Equity
1 Names Issuance of a bond, debenture, promissory note Stock certificate, lack of any certificate
2 Fixed maturity date Re-payment required (or expressly contemplated) on a fixed date No fixed date
3 Source of repayments Repaid through more debt Repaid from retained corporate earnings
4 Right to enforce payment Legal obligation to repay Discretion whether to repay
5 Participation in management No increase in participation Increase in participation or voting
6 Priority compared to regular corporate creditors Liens, contractual priority No priority
7 Intent of the parties If objective intent is unclear, consider if subjective intent indicates debt If objective intent is unclear, consider if subjective intent indicates equity
8 “Thin” or adequate capitalization Other sources of cash available High debt-to-equity-ratio, funds used to start up business
9 Identity of interest between creditor and stockholder Advances by stockholders are sharply disproportionate from stock ownership Advances by stockholders in proportion to stock ownership
10 Source of interest payments Parties agree to provision for payment of interest on the advance No insistence on interest payments
11 Ability to borrow from outside lenders Reasonable outside lenders would provide loan funding No reasonable possibility of outside lender money
12 Acquire capital assets Funds used for temporary purposes with reasonably determinable time period Capital investment made lacking assurance of repayment
13 Failure of the debtor to repay or postpone Repayment made or extension agreed to prior to maturity date Repayment date passes with no communication


Ultimately, the analyst must conclude whether debt or equity is indicated based on all the facts and circumstances. The analyst determines debt or equity from an accounting standpoint and does not draw a legal conclusion.

[1] As described in FASB’s Concept Statement No. 8, assets can also be thought of as the present right to an economic benefit, liabilities (including debt) are an obligation to transfer an economic benefit, and equity is the residual ownership. We discussed the value of accounting definitions in a previous post.

[2] As noted in the Mixon Case, the question of debt or equity has been discussed in numerous court opinions and continues to be an ongoing issue because every dispute involves unique facts and circumstances. Courts do not always use the same exact factors but there is substantial overlap in the factors considered. See from Dixie Dairies Corp. v. Commissioner, 74 T.C. 476 (1980), “… e.g., Estate of Mixon v. United States, 464 F.2d 394, 402 (5th Cir. 1972) (13 factors); A. R. Lantz Co. v. United States, 424 F.2d 1330 (9th Cir. 1970) (11 factors); Fin Hay Realty Co. v. United States, 398 F.2d 694 (3d Cir. 1968) (16 factors); Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. Commissioner, 63 T.C. 790 (1975) (13 factors).”