Income And Cancellation of Indebtedness

 

I am reading a case about cancellation of indebtedness income. 

Let’s take a moment to discuss the concept of income in the tax Code. 

The 16^th amendment, passed in 1913 and authorizing a federal income tax, reads as follows: 

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Needless to say, the definition of “incomes, from whatever source” became immediately contentious. 

Ask a tax practitioner for a definition of income, and it is likely that he/she will respond with “an accession to wealth.” 

That phrase comes from a 1955 Supreme Court case (Commissioner v Glenshaw Glass) which included the following: 

Here, we have instances of undeniable accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion." 

I am seeing three conditions, of which “accession to wealth” is but one. 

Let’s circle back to indebtedness and income.

Can one have income by borrowing money? 

Unless there is something extraordinarily odd about the loan, I would say “no.” The reason is that any increase in wealth (by receipt of the loan proceeds) is immediately offset by the requirement to repay the loan. 

Let’s say you buy a house. You take out a mortgage. 

What if you are in financial distress and mail the keys back to the mortgage company? 

Granted, the house secures the debt, but surrendering the house does not automatically release the debt. It however will likely result in your receiving the following 1099:

Like any 1099, there is a presumption of income. In this instance, there has been an exchange in the ownership of the house. There is another way to say this: the tax Code sees a sale of the property. 

It seems odd that tax sees potential income here. It is unlikely to happen if the surrendered asset is one’s principal residence, as one would have access to the $250,000/$500,000 gain exclusion. It could happen if the surrendered asset is rental or investment property, though. 

What about the debt on the property? 

Tax considers that a separate transaction. 

When the debt is discharged, the IRS has yet another form: 

Yes, it gets confusing. The system works much better when the two steps happen concurrently – such as in a short sale. In that case, it is common to skip the 1099-A altogether and just issue the 1099-C. 

NOTE: There is a twist in the straw depending upon whether the debt is recourse or nonrecourse. Believe it or not, there are about a dozen states where you can buy your principal residence with nonrecourse debt. You will not be surprised to learn that California is one of them. The upside is that you can return the keys to the bank and no longer be responsible for the mortgage. The downside is this policy was a major contributor to the burst of the housing bubble in the late aughts.

It is common for the 1099-C to be issued three years after the 1099-A. Why? The Code requires the reporting of cancellation of indebtedness on or before an “identifiable event” happens. 

An identifiable event in turn is defined as: 

1.  bankruptcy
2.  expiration of statute of limitations for collection
3.  cancellation of debt that renders it unenforceable in a receivership, foreclosure, or similar proceeding
4.  creditor's election of foreclosure remedies that statutorily bars recovery
5.  cancelation of debt due to probate proceedings
6.  creditor's discharge pursuant to an agreement
7.  discharge of indebtedness pursuant to a decision by the creditor, or the application of a defined policy of the creditor, to discontinue collection activity and discharge debt
8.  in specific cases, the expiration of a non-payment testing period [presumption of 36 months of no payment to the creditor]    

The three years is number (8). 

The income type we are discussing with the 1099-C is cancellation of indebtedness income. As discussed, just borrowing money does not create income. Whereas your assets may go up (you have cash from the loan or bought something with the cash), that amount is offset by the loan itself. The scales are balanced, and there is no accession to income. 

However, cancel the debt. 

The scale is no longer balanced. 

Meaning you have potential income. 

But the Code allows for exceptions. Here is Section 108: 

                (a) Exclusion from gross income

(1) In general Gross income does not include any amount which (but for this subsection) would be includible in gross income by reason of the discharge (in whole or in part) of indebtedness of the taxpayer if—

(A) the discharge occurs in a title 11 case,

(B) the discharge occurs when the taxpayer is insolvent,

(C) the indebtedness discharged is qualified farm indebtedness,

(D) in the case of a taxpayer other than a C corporation, the indebtedness discharged is qualified real property business indebtedness, or

(E) the indebtedness discharged is qualified principal residence indebtedness which is discharged—

(i) before January 1, 2026, or

(ii) subject to an arrangement that is entered into and evidenced in writing before January 1, 2026. 

The common ones are (a)(1)(A) for bankruptcy and (a)(1)B) for insolvency. 

Bankruptcy is self-explanatory. 

Solvency is not self-explanatory. You can think of insolvency as being bankrupt but not filing for formal bankruptcy. You owe more than you own. Let’s call the difference between the two the “hole.” To the extent that that cancelled debt is less than the “hole,” there is no cancellation of indebtedness income. Once the cancelled debt equals the “hole,” the exclusion ends. At that point, your net worth is zero (-0-). Technically the next dollar is an “accession to wealth” and therefore income. 

In our case this week Ilana Jivago borrowed from Citibank. She defaulted and was eventually foreclosed on in 2009. Citibank sent her a 1099-C. Jivago argued that it was nontaxable because it was qualified principal residence indebtedness per (a)(1)(E) above. 

Qualified principal residence indebtedness is defined as:         

Indebtedness incurred in acquiring, constructing, or substantially improving any qualified residence of the taxpayer.

The Court looked at photographs of and admired the renovations she made in 2005 and 2006. The Court noted that Jivago did not use an interior designer, and she did much of the work herself.

The problem is that 2005 and 2006 were before she borrowed from Citibank. 

Easy win for the IRS.

Our case this time was Jivago v Commissioner, Docket No. 5411-21.

Income And Cancellation of Bank Debt

 

There is a basic presumption in the tax Code that any accession to “wealth” is income. It isn’t much of a leap for the tax Code to then say that all income is taxable unless otherwise excluded.

Let’s next look at “wealth.” I propose a working definition as follows:

          Assets (A) = Liabilities (L) + Wealth (W)

A little algebra shows the following:

          A – L = W

Here is spiff on the above: do you have wealth if your liabilities go down?

Let’s look at the Katrina White case.

Katrina started a business in 2015. She took out a business loan for $15,000. She leased space for her business, signing a three-year lease.

The business did not work out. The family lent her $8 grand, but there was no way to save it. She had repaid the bank less than a grand when her remaining debt of $14,433 was discharged. The bank sent her a 1099, of course, as all American life events can apparently be reduced to a 1099.

Katrina never made a payment on the lease. Since rent was late for more than two months, the entire lease became due and payable. That fiasco totaled $21,700.

 She filed her return.

The IRS said she left out income of $14,433.

How?

Let’s go through it.

Katrina said that her wealth (that is, A – L = W) was as follows when the business failed:                 

Real property		28,500
Personal property		3,560
		32,060
Student loans		5,294
Utilities		961
Utilities, estimated		2,500
Furniture loan		1,120
Judgements		8,128
Bank loan		14,433
Lease breach		21,700
Family loan		7,800
		61,936
Net wealth		(29,876)

The IRS wasn’t buying this. They argued that:

·      The estimated utilities were a no go.

·      The family loan wasn’t really a “loan.”

·      While we are at it, the lease breach wasn’t really a loan, as the landlord had no intention of enforcing the debt.

The IRS math was as follows:

Real property		28,500
Personal property		3,560
		32,060
Student loans		5,294
Utilities		961
Furniture loan		1,120
Judgements		8,128
Bank loan		14,433
		29,936
Net wealth		2,124

The matter went to Tax Court.

The Court pointed out the obvious: Katrina signed a valid and binding lease contract. Perhaps the landlord decided that there was nothing there to pursue, but it cannot be argued that she had an enforceable debt.

The Court saw the following:

Real property		28,500
Personal property		3,560
		32,060
Student loans		5,294
Utilities		961
Furniture loan		1,120
Judgements		8,128
Bank loan		14,433
Lease breach		21,700
		51,636
Net wealth		(19,576)

Let’s recap our numbers:

Wealth per Katrina was          ($29,876)

Wealth per the IRS was              $2,124

Wealth per the Court was        ($19,576)

Remember what we said at the beginning, that all income is taxable unless there is an exception?  Well, there is an exception for cancellation of debt. Several, in fact, but today we are concerned with only one: insolvency. The Code says that one does not have income to the extent that one is insolvent.

What is insolvency?

Go back to the formula: A – L = W.

To the extent that “W” is negative, one is insolvent. Another way of saying it is that one has more debts than assets.

So, who showed negative “W”?

Well, Katrina did. So did the Court.

Katrina was insolvent. That was an exception to cancellation of indebtedness income. Katrina did not have taxable income. The IRS lost.

Our case this time was Katrina White v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2023.-77.

Abandoning A Partnership Interest

I suspect that most taxpayers know that there is a difference between long-term capital gains and ordinary income. Long-term capital gains receive a lower tax rate, incentivizing one to prefer long-terms gains, if at all possible.

Capital losses are not as useful. Capital losses offset capital gains, whether short-term or long-term. If one has net capital losses left over, then one can claim up to $3,000 of such losses to offset non-capital gain income (think your W-2).

That $3,000 number has not changed since I was in school.

And there is an example of a back-door tax increase. Congress has imposed an effective tax increase by not pegging the $3,000 to (at least) the rate of inflation for the last how-many decades. It is the same thing they have done with the threshold amount for the net investment income or the additional Medicare tax. It is an easy way to raise taxes without publicly raising taxes.

I am looking at a case where two brothers owned Edwin Watts Golf. Most of the stores were located on real estate also owned by the brothers, so the brothers owned two things: a golf supply business and the real estate it was housed in.

In 2003 a private equity firm (Wellspring) offered the brothers $93 million for the business. The brothers took the money (so would I), kept the real estate and agreed to certain terms, such as Wellspring having control over any sale of the business. The brothers also received a small partnership position with Wellspring.

Why did they keep the real estate? Because the golf businesses were paying rent, meaning that even more money went their way.

The day eventually came when Wellspring wanted out; that is what private equity does, after all. It was looking at two offers: one was with Dick’s Sporting Goods and the other with Sun Capital.  Dick’s Sporting already had its own stores and would have no need for the existing golf shop locations. The brothers realized that would be catastrophic for the easy-peasy rental income that was coming in, so they threw their weight behind the offer by Sun Capital.

Now, one does not own a private equity firm by being a dummy, so Wellspring wanted something in return for choosing Sun Capital over Dick’s Sporting.

Fine, said the brothers: you can keep our share of the sales proceeds.

The brothers did not run the proposed transaction past their tax advisor. This was unfortunate, as there was a tax trap waiting to spring.  

Generally speaking, the sale or exchange of a partnership interest results in capital gain or loss. The partners received no cash from the sale. Assuming they had basis (that is, money invested) in the partnership, the sale or exchange would have resulted in a capital loss.

Granted, one can use capital losses against capital gains, but that means one needs capital gains.   What if you do not have enough gains? Any gains? We then get back to an obsolete $3,000 per year allowance. Have a big enough loss and one would need the lifespan of a Tolkien elf to use-up the loss.

The brothers’ accountant found out what happened during tax season and well after the fact. He too knew the issue with capital losses. He played a card, in truth the only card he had. Could what happened be reinterpreted as the abandonment of a partnership interest?

There is something you don’t see every day.

Let’s talk about it.

This talk gets us into Code sections, as the reasoning is that one does not have a “sale or exchange” of a partnership interest if one abandons the interest. This gets the tax nerd away from the capital gain/loss requirement of Section 741 and into the more temperate climes of Section 165. One would plan the transaction to get to a more favorable Code section (165) and avoid a less favorable one (741). 

There are hurdles here, though. The first two are generally not a problem, but the third can be brutal.

The first two are as follows:

(1) The taxpayer must show an intent to abandon the interest; and

(2)  The taxpayer must show an affirmative act of abandonment.

This is not particularly hard to do, methinks. I would send a letter to the tax matters or general partner indicating my intent to abandon the interest, and then I would send (to all partners, if possible) a letter that I have in fact abandoned my interest and relinquished all rights and benefits thereunder. This assumes there is no partners’ meeting. If there was a meeting, I would do it there. Heck, I might do both to avoid all doubt.

What is the third hurdle?

There can be no “consideration” on the way out.

Consideration in tax means more than just receiving money. It also includes someone assuming debt you were previously responsible for.

The rule-of-thumb in a general partnership is that the partners are responsible for their allocable share of partnership debt. This is a problem, especially if one is not interested in being liable for any share of any debt. This is how we got to limited partnerships, where the general partner is responsible for the debts and the limited partners are not.

Extrapolating the above, a general partner in a general partnership is going to have issues abandoning a partnership interest if the partnership has debt. The partnership would have to pay-off that debt, refinance the debt from recourse to nonrecourse, or perhaps a partner or group of partners could assume the debt, excluding the partner who wants to abandon.

Yea, the planning can be messy for a general partnership.

It would be less messy for a limited partner in a limited partnership.

Then we have the limited liability companies. (LLCs). Those bad boys have a splash of general partnership, a sprinkling of limited partnership, and they can result in a stew of both rules.

The third plank to the abandonment of a partnership interest can be formidable, depending on how the entity is organized and how the debts are structured. If a partner wants an abandonment, it is more likely than not that pieces on the board have to be moved in order to get there.   

The brothers’ accountant however had no chance to move pieces before Wellspring sold Edwin Watts Golf. He held his breath and prepared tax returns showing the brothers as abandoning their partnership interests. This gave them ordinary losses, meaning that the losses were immediately useful on their tax returns.

The IRS caught it and said “no way.”

There were multiple chapters in the telling of this story, but in the end the Court decided for the IRS.

Why?

Because the brothers had the option of structuring the transaction to obtain the tax result they desired. If they wanted an abandonment, then they should have taken the steps necessary for an abandonment. They did not. There is a long-standing doctrine in the Code that a taxpayer is allowed to structure a transaction anyway he/she wishes, but once structured the taxpayer has to live with the consequences. This doctrine is not tolerant of taxpayer do-overs.

The brothers had a capital and not an ordinary loss. They were limited to capital gains plus $3 grand per year. Yay.

Our case this time for the home gamers was Watts, T.C. Memo 2017-114.

Talking Frankly About Offers In Compromise

I am reading a case involving an offer in compromise (OIC).

In general, I have become disinclined to do OIC work.

And no, it is not just a matter of being paid. I will accept discounted or pro bono work if someone’s story moves me. I recently represented a woman who immigrated from Thailand several years ago to marry an American. She filed a joint tax return for her first married year, and – sure enough – the IRS came after her when her husband filed bankruptcy. When we met, her English was still shaky, at best. She wanted to return to Thailand but wanted to resolve her tax issue first. She was terrified.   

I was upset that the IRS went after an immigrant for her first year filing U.S. taxes ever, who had limited command of the language, who was mostly unable to work because of long-term health complications and who was experiencing visible - even to me - stress-related issues.

Yes, we got her innocent spouse status. She has since returned to Thailand.

Back to offers in compromise.

There are two main reasons why I shy from OIC’s:

(1) I cannot get you pennies-on-the-dollar.

You know what I am taking about: those late-night radio or television commercials.

Do not get me wrong: it can happen. Take someone who has his/her earning power greatly reduced, say by an accident. Add in an older person, meaning fewer earning years remaining, and one might get to pennies on the dollar.

I do not get those clients.

I was talking with someone this past week who wants me to represent his OIC. He used to own a logistics business, but the business went bust and he left considerable debt in his wake. He is now working for someone else.

Facts: he is still young; he is making decent money; he has years of earning power left.

Question: Can he get an OIC?

Answer: I think there is a good chance, as his overall earning power is down.

Can he get pennies on the dollar?

He is still young; he is making decent money; he has years of earning power left. How do you think the IRS will view that request?

(2) The multi-year commitment to an OIC.

When you get into a payment plan with the IRS, there is an expectation that you will improve your tax compliance. The IRS has dual goals when it makes a deal:

(a)  Collect what it can (of course), and

(b)  Get you back into the tax system.

Get into an OIC and the IRS expects you to stay out of trouble for 5 years. 

So, if you are self-employed the IRS will expect you to make quarterly estimates. If you routinely owe, it will want you to increase your withholding so that you don’t owe. That is your end of the deal.

I have lost count of the clients over the years who did not hold-up their end of the deal.  I remember one who swung by Galactic Command to lament how he could not continue his IRS payment plan and then asked me to step outside to see his new car.

Folks, there is little to nothing that a tax advisor can do for you in that situation. It is frustrating and – frankly – a waste of time.

Let’s look at someone who tried to run the five-year gauntlet.

Ed and Cynthia Sadjadi wound up owing for 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011.

They got an installment plan.

Then they flipped it to an OIC.

COMMENT: What is the difference? In a vanilla installment plan, you pay back the full amount of taxes. Perhaps the IRS cuts you some slack with penalties, but they are looking to recoup 100% of the taxes. In an OIC, the IRS is acknowledging that they will not get 100% of the taxes.

The Sadjadis were good until they filed their 2015 tax return. They then owed tax.

The reasoned that they had paid-off the vast majority if not all of their 2008 through 2011 taxes. They lived-up to their end of the deal. They now needed a new payment plan.

Makes sense, right?

And what does sense have to do with taxes?

The Court reminded them of what they signed way back when:

I will file tax returns and pay the required taxes for the five-year period beginning with the date and acceptance of this offer.

The IRS will not remove the original amount of my tax debt from its records until I have met all the terms and conditions of this offer.

If I fail to meet any of the terms of this offer, the IRS may levy or sue me to collect …..

The Court was short and sweet. What part of “five-year period” did the Sadjadis not understand?

Those taxes that the IRS wrote-off with the OIC?

Bam! They are back.

Yep. That is how it works.

Our case this time was Sadjadi v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2019-58.

Are You Insolvent Or Not?

There is a case called Hamilton v Commissioner. It was recently decided in the 10^th Circuit, and it caught my eye.

Since it went to a Circuit court, you may correctly assume that this case was on appeal.

Frankly, I do not see a win condition for the taxpayer here. It does, however, give us an opportunity to discuss the concept of a tax nominee.

The patriarch of our story – Mr Hamilton – borrowed over $150,000 to send his son to medical school.

Mr Hamilton injured his back in 2008 – and badly.

I presume that translated into loss of income and a difficult time servicing debt.

Mrs Hamilton finally got the student loan discharged in 2011.

A key point is that the student loan belonged to Mr Hamilton – not the son. When the loan was discharged, the tax effect is therefore analyzed at Mr Hamilton’s level, as he was the debtor.

Before the discharge, Mrs Hamilton transferred approximately $300 grand into a rarely used savings account owned by her son. He in turn gave her the username and password so she could access the account. Throughout 2011, for example, she withdrew close to $120,000 from the account.

COMMENT: There you have the issue of a nominee: whose account is it: Mrs Hamilton’s, the son’s, or both? Granted, it the son’s name is on the account, but is he acting as the face man – that is, a nominee – for someone else?

The issue in the case is whether the discharged debt of $150 grand was taxable to the Hamiltons in 2011.

In general, if your recourse debt is discharged, you have taxable income. There are several exceptions, of which one of the better known is bankruptcy. File for bankruptcy and the tax Code allows you to exclude the debt from taxable income.

But … it requires you to file bankruptcy.

There is a similar – but not quite the same – exception that has to do with insolvency. For tax purposes, one is insolvent if one’s debts exceeds one’s assets.

EXAMPLE: You have assets (house, car, savings, etc.) of $400,000. You owe $500,000. You are insolvent to the extent that your debts exceed your assets ($500,000 – 400,000 = $100,000).

Mind you, you are not filing for bankruptcy. I suppose it is possible that you could power through this stretch, cutting back personal expenditures to a minimum and applying everything else to debt. Still, you are technically insolvent.

The tax Code lets you exclude debt forgiveness from taxable income to the extent that you are insolvent.

EXAMPLE: Let’s continue with the above example. Say that $50,000 is forgiven. You are $100,000 insolvent. $50 grand is less than $100 grand, so $50 grand would be excluded under the insolvency exception.

NEXT EXAMPLE: What if $125 grand was forgiven? You could exclude $100 grand and no more. That last $25,000 would be taxable, as you are no longer insolvent.

The insolvency calculation puts a lot of pressure on what to include and what to exclude in the calculation. Do you include a 401(k) account, for example? Do you include someone else’s loan on which you cosigned?

In the Hamilton case, do you include that savings account?

Under state law, the son did own the account. Tax law however will rarely allow itself to be trapped by mere formality. This judicial doctrine is referred as “substance over form,” and it means what it says: tax law will generally look at the players and on-field performance and resist being distracted by the school band and T-shirt cannons.

The Court made short work of this case.

The taxpayers argued, for example, that the son could change the username and password at any time, so it would be a leap to call him an agent or nominee for his parents.

Yep, and a delivery spaceship for intergalactic deep-dish pizza could land on Spaghetti Junction in Atlanta during rush hour.

If you can log-in with impunity and move $120,000 grand, then you have effective control over the bank account. The mother’s name was not on the account, but it may as well have been because the son was his mother’s agent – that is, her nominee.

I have no problem with that. I would have done the same for my mother, without hesitation.

What the Hamiltons could not do, however, was leave-out that bank account when they were counting assets for purposes of the insolvency calculation. It was, after all, around $300 hundred – less than a Bezos but a lot more than a smidgeon.

Did it affect the insolvency calculation?

Of course it did. That is why the case went to Court.

The Hamiltons were not insolvent. They had income from the debt discharge.

They had to try, I guess, but I doubt whether they ever had a win condition.