IRS Comes Up Short: Ninth Circuit Case Allows Interest Deduction for Short Sale
In their Real Estate Financing column, Ezra Dyckman and Charles Nelson discuss the recent Ninth Circuit case, 'Milkovich v. United States,' which raises a number of interesting issues relating to distressed debt and serves as a reminder of the importance of the distinction between cancellation-of-indebtedness income and gain from the sale of property.
June 21, 2022 at 10:58 AM
5 minute read
The income tax consequences of a foreclosure or short sale of real property depend on whether the mortgage debt is recourse or nonrecourse to the taxpayer. If the mortgage debt is recourse, then the taxpayer is personally liable for any deficiency on the loan. If the lender forgives such a deficiency, the taxpayer recognizes cancellation-of-indebtedness income, which is taxed as ordinary income. In contrast, if the mortgage debt is nonrecourse, then the entire balance of the debt is treated as proceeds from the sale of the property, even if it exceeds the fair market value or actual sales price of the property.
As an example, assume that a taxpayer owned a property with a tax basis of $40, subject to mortgage debt of $100, and that the property is sold in a short sale for $75. If the mortgage debt is recourse, then the taxpayer will recognize $35 of capital gain from the sale, and if the lender forgives the $25 deficiency, then the taxpayer will also recognize $25 of cancellation-of-indebtedness income. In contrast, if the mortgage debt is nonrecourse, the taxpayer will recognize $60 of capital gain and no cancellation-of-indebtedness income.
A recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit case illustrates these rules and raises a number of interesting issues relating to distressed debt. In Milkovich v. United States, 28 F. 4th 1 (9th Cir. 2022), the taxpayers originally purchased a home with mortgage debt for which they were personally liable. The debt was subsequently refinanced with another recourse loan, and several years later, the home was underwater and the taxpayers stopped making payments on the loan.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFusion Voting and Its Impact on the Upcoming Election
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250