Maurice B Foley 360x1000
storyparadox3
Storyparadox1
storyparadox2
Office of Chief Counsel 360x1000
5confidencegames
Margaret Fuller 360x1000
LillianFaderman
7albion
Gilgamesh 360x1000
2confidencegames
299
Tad Friend 360x1000
lifeinmiddlemarch1
13albion
George M Cohan and Lerarned Hand 360x1000
Edmund Burke 360x1000
Margaret Fuller4 360x1000
11albion
8albion'
Thomas Piketty2 360x1000
9albion
2lookingforthegoodwar
2lafayette
399
1paradide
1theleasofus
Susie King Taylor 360x1000
2theleastofus
Learned Hand 360x1000
499
1confidencegames
1lafayette
Mary Ann Evans 360x1000
12albion
Maria Popova 360x1000
5albion
1lauber
1defense
1lookingforthegoodwar
2paradise
1trap
1jesusandjohnwayne
Margaret Fuller3 360x1000
3albion
Samuel Johnson 360x1000
Brendan Beehan 360x1000
Richard Posner 360x1000
2defense
Spottswood William Robinson 360x1000
7confidencegames
1gucci
Thomas Piketty1 360x1000
1empireofpain
3defense
George F Wil...360x1000
2falsewitness
2gucci
11632
6confidencegames
Ruth Bader Ginsburg 360x1000
14albion
3theleastofus
3confidencegames
2transadentilist
lifeinmiddlemarch2
1transcendentalist
Anthony McCann2 360x1000
Betty Friedan 360x1000
Susie King Taylor2 360x1000
2jesusandjohnwayne
Margaret Fuller1 360x1000
Mark V Holmes 360x1000
AlexRosenberg
Lafayette and Jefferson 360x1000
6albion
Margaret Fuller2 360x1000
4albion
Anthony McCann1 360x1000
3paradise
4confidencegames
Thomas Piketty3 360x1000
2trap
James Gould Cozzens 360x1000
199
Adam Gopnik 360x1000
2albion
10abion
Stormy Daniels 360x1000
1albion
1falsewitness
Margaret Fuller 2 360x1000
Margaret Fuller5 360x1000
1madoff
 

Originally published on Forbes.com Nov 17th, 2013
A recent IRS letter to Senator Barbara Boxer concerning the income tax implications of short sales by California homeowners seems to be provoking unqualified celebration.  This headline – IRS Will Not Penalize Cali Families Losing Homes To Short Sales -is fairly typical.  There was a lot of concern about this because at the end of 2013 the generous exclusion from debt discharge income when qualified principal residence mortgages are involved is set to expire.  People losing their homes in a short sale is upsetting enough.  The idea that they will end up with a tax bill if the bank does not pursue a deficiency judgement  is really upsetting.  Hence the celebration since the import of the letter is that there will be no debt discharge income when California homeowners end up doing short sales.
I hate to spoil a nice celebration, but I am going to risk it.  The position that the IRS outlined in the ruling is probably good news for most people affected by it.  It may not be good news for everybody, though.  In order to understand why you have to understand the IRS reasoning.  Here is the deal.  When debt is secured by property, it is either recourse or non-recourse.  Recourse means that even if the property is taken in satisfaction of the debt the creditor can still pursue the debtor.  If the debt is non-recourse, the debtor can just hand the creditor the keys and walk away.
When property is surrendered in exchange for debt being repaid and the debt is recourse, the debt relief is considered proceeds of a sale to the extent of the fair market value of the property and debt discharge income for the balance.  If the debt is non-recourse, all of it is considered proceeds of the sale.  In 2011, the California Code of Civil Procedure was amended to add Section 580e which provides that:

No deficiency shall be owed or collected, and no deficiency judgment shall be requested or rendered for any deficiency upon a note secured solely by a deed of trust or mortgage for a dwelling of not more than four units, in any case in which the trustor or mortgagor sells the dwelling for a sale price less than the remaining amount of the indebtedness outstanding at the time of sale, in accordance with the written consent of the holder of the deed of trust or mortgage…

The effect of that section is to make just about all California home mortgages non-recourse.  Hence there will never be debt discharge income generated by them.  Probably under the most common scenarios, this rule will work out to be taxpayer-friendly.  If your home is being foreclosed because the value plummeted after you bought it you probably have a loss – a non-deductible loss.  Even if you have a gain, for whatever odd reason, you will likely qualify for exclusion up to $250,000 or $500,000 if you are married.
There are situations where this rule might work against the taxpayer, particularly those who borrowed against property after it appreciated.  There are various exceptions to recognizing debt discharge income, such as the insolvency exception.  These will no longer be available.  There will be a gain that is inescapable to the extent that it is not covered by the principal residence exclusion.  So look closely at your facts before you throw a party to celebrate this ruling.
You can follow me on twitter @peterreillycpa.