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.

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.

Can You Have Cancellation Of Debt Income If You Are Still Paying On The Debt?

Harold is a native Hawaiian. He has worked in the telecommunications industry for more than 40 years. In 1996 he founded Summit Communications, Inc (Summit), which he served in the capacity of president, chief executive officer and director.

Al has a background similar to Harold's, but his company was called Sandwich Isles Communications, Inc (SIC). In 1997 he desperately needed a telecommunications executive. Al met Harold and wanted Harold to come work for him.

Harold was already involved with Summit, which was having business issues. Harold felt a commitment to the company and his employees.

But Al was not going to let go easily.

In 1998 Al sweetened the offer by including a $450,000 loan. He knew that Harold would immediately loan the monies to Summit. In fact, that is why Al offered the deal. He wanted to loan to be to Harold so that he and SIC did not have to deal with Summit's board of directors.

SIC also wanted to contract with Summit for operations and technical support.

Harold signed on with SIC, and Al let him stay on as Summit's director and chief executive officer.

They signed a note, stipulating that Harold had to repay the loan if he ever left SIC's employment.

The relationship went well, and by the end of 1999 Summit was booming, although - granted - SIC represented 60% of its revenues. It was growing so much that it need Harold back. Al, basically being a good guy, agreed that Harold should return.

No one remembered that Harold had to repay the loan.

SIC then received a large loan from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which it used to upgrade its operations and technical staff. As it did, SIC's reliance on Summit decreased. By 2002 Summit filed a bankruptcy petition. By 2005 Harold had gone back to work for Al.

In 2010 the IRS audited SIC.

In 2011 Al met with Harold and reminded him that the loan was still due. Harold arranged for payroll deductions - first for $300 per month, then $600 and finally a $1,000 a month - to repay the loan.

The IRS sent a notice to Harold. The IRS said that SIC had discharged his loan, and he had cancellation of indebtedness income.

Think about this for a moment. The IRS wanted taxes from Harold because he had been let off the hook for a $450,000 loan. The problem is that Harold was still paying on the loan. Both cannot be true at the same time, so what was the IRS' reasoning?

It primarily had to do with how many years SIC had to pursue collection before the statute of limitations ran out. Remember: Harold did not start paying the loan until 2011. According to the IRS, there was no enforceable loan at that time, as SIC had gone too long without any evident collection activity. That was the triggering event for income to Harold: when the debt was no longer enforceable.

The IRS had a good point.

The IRS also argued that Harold starting repaying on the loan because it had noticed the defaulted loan on audit and Harold did not want to pay taxes on it.

Harold and Al appeared before the Court and testified that they both considered the loan outstanding, and the Court found them both to be "honest, forthright, and credible."

The Court could not help but notice that Harold and Al were on separate sides with respect to the loan.

 ... respondent argues that any repayment activity taken after the commencement of the examination should be discounted. We disagree. The testimony suggests instead that [Harold] sought to repay the SIC loan because he understood that it was his obligation to repay it. Additionally, a reasonable person in this case would not agree to pay an unenforceable debt to save a fraction of that debt on taxes. Repayment, in other words, is against [Harold's] economic interests."

The Court agreed that cancellation of income requires a triggering event, but it disagreed that the expiration of the statute automatically rose to that level.

... the expiration of the period of limitations generally does not cancel an underlying debt obligation but simply provides an affirmative defense for the debtor in an action by the creditor."

The Court decided that Harold owed the debt. He did not have income.

Why did the IRS pursue this? It certainly did not put a smiley face on their public persona.

I suspect the IRS considered themselves backed into a corner. If the loan really was uncollectible AND the IRS did not pursue, then the regular three-year statute on tax assessments would close on Harold's tax year. At that point, the IRS could not reach Harold again if it wanted to. If however the IRS went to Court - even if it lost - it would mean that the loan was either still in place or discharged in a later year. In either case, the IRS could reach Harold.

Caught In A (IRS Mortgage) Trap

Sometimes it seems that the tax Code is a trap waiting to spring on some unfortunate.  This time let’s talk about a trap involving mortgages.

(1) Chris and Jennifer bought a house in 2001 for $365,000.

(2) In 2003 they borrowed money ($427,333) from Jennifer’s mom. The note carried interest of 4.5%, and there was a document titled “Mortgage Note.”

(3) They also signed a second document titled “Mortgage.” This document included the following language:

“… hereby grant, convey and assign to … the property with the address of …..”

The document was signed, but it was not notarized or recorded at the courthouse.

(4) In 2008 Chris and Jennifer borrowed $200,000 from a bank. The bank required a note and mortgage. The bank recorded the mortgage.

(5) In 2009 Chris and Jennifer paid her mom $19,320 on her note and the bank $1,138 on theirs. They deducted the sum ($20,368) as mortgage interest on their tax return.

(7) The IRS audited their 2009 return.

What is there to look at?

The Code does not allow one to deduct personal interest. It used to, and people could deduct interest on their car loans and credit cards. That law changed in 1986, and the Code now restricts which types of interest are deductible.

One type is qualified residence interest. This is interest paid or accrued during the taxable year on acquisition indebtedness or home equity indebtedness secured by the qualified residence of the taxpayer. You and I call that a mortgage.

On first impression, it seems that Chris and Jennifer met this requirement.

Let’s look further at the definition of “acquisition indebtedness”:

(i)       In general – The term “acquisition indebtedness” means any indebtedness which –

(I)                Is incurred in acquiring, constructing, or substantially improving any qualified residence of the taxpayer, and

(II)             Is secured by such residence.

Regulation 1.163-10T(o) defines secured debt as “… recorded, where permitted, or is otherwise perfected in accordance with applicable State law.’

There is the trap. 

The debt has to be “perfected” under state law. The concept of “perfected” means that the secured creditor has a preferred position relative to an unsecured (or perhaps just a later) creditor. The money from that house goes to that mortgage holder, as he/she is first in line. Anyone else has to wait his/her turn.

Chris and Jennifer lived in Massachusetts, which requires a mortgage be recorded at the courthouse to be “perfected.”

Let’s start the unraveling:

(1) The mortgage was not perfected, meaning

(2) The debt to mom could not be “acquisition indebtedness,” meaning

(3) The interest on the debt could not be mortgage interest

The IRS – adding to its reputation of stabbing the dead – also charged Chris and Jennifer with the accuracy penalty. This is a “super” penalty and applies when the error trips certain dollar or percentage thresholds.

I cannot help but feel that the penalty was unnecessary. Is the IRS expecting people to be tax pros before they can fill-out their own tax returns? What are they going to do with me if I make a mistake on my return – shoot me?

I worry about this mortgage trap when working with intrafamily loans involving someone’s house. It can be tempting to cheat on attorney fees and not properly document or record the loan and mortgage.

If audited, one can expect the IRS to be as sympathetic to them as the IRS was to Chris and Jennifer.