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

CCH TRA 1986

Originally published on Forbes.com May 1st, 2014

It’s nice when the IRS Chief Counsel cuts down on their luck taxpayers some slack.  There was concern that when a wannabee real estate genius had it all fall apart their suspended losses might still be disallowed.  CCA 201415002 (sorry can’t find a free link) at least reassures them that the IRS will not be kicking them when they are down – at least not with that foot.  It is a complicated area, so a little explanation is in order.

Passive Activities – The Basics

The passive activity loss rules are probably the most complicated tax provisions that affect ordinary mortals.  A host of part-time landlords have, for the most part fruitlessly, fought them in Tax Court.  The rules require us to segregate our activities into those in which we materially participate and those in which we don’t – passive and non-passive.  Rental real estate is “per se” passive unless you are more involved in real estate trades or businesses than anything else.  Losses in the passive bucket are only allowed to the extent of gains in the passive bucket.  Otherwise, the losses are suspended and carried forward indefinitely.

Even in the absence of passive income, passive losses will be allowed in the year that a passive activity is fully disposed.  There is a catch though.  You have to dispose of the activity in a fully taxable transaction.  So if you have a rental property that has accumulated losses, you will not be able to free up the losses by giving the property away or exchanging it for a property of like-kind.

What About Foreclosure?

People are distressed to learn that when they lose their property in foreclosure that they might be tagged with taxable income.  (They find the tax deductions that did not require cash outlay and tax-free loan proceeds from refinancing quite a bit less distressing)  The income can be in two forms.  To the extent of the fair market value of the property, the debt balance is considered sales proceeds.  If you are upside down, the debt is recourse and the creditor decides not to chase you for the balance, you have COD – Cancellation of Debt Income.

Now COD is not necessarily taxable income.  It can be excluded to the extent that you are insolvent before the debt discharge or if you are in bankruptcy.   Does that exclusion mean that the foreclosure is not a disposition that frees up your passive losses?   That was the question the Chief Counsel’s office addressed and affected taxpayers will like the answer.

Highlights of the Ruling 

Does a foreclosure on real property subject to recourse debt comprising a taxpayer’s entire interest in a passive (or former passive) activity qualify as a fully taxable disposition for purposes of § 469(g)(1)(A) if the foreclosure triggers cancellation of indebtedness (COD) income that is excluded from gross income under § 108(a)(1)(B)?

A foreclosure on real property subject to recourse debt comprising the taxpayer’s entire interest in a passive (or former passive) activity is a fully taxable transaction for purposes of §§ 1001 and 469(g)(1)(A), regardless of whether any COD income from the cancellation of recourse debt is excluded under § 108(a)(1)(B). Thus, the losses from the activity are treated as not from a passive activity under §469(g)(1)(A). Additionally, these losses are not reduced by any excluded COD income under § 108(b)(2)(F).

There was not a lot for them to go on as the statute and the regulations do not expand on what a “fully taxable transaction” is.  They had to go into the Senate Report accompanying the Tax Reform Act of 1986.

When a taxpayer disposes of his entire interest in a passive activity, the actual economic gain or loss on his investment can be finally determined. Thus, under the passive loss rule, upon a fully taxable disposition, any overall loss from the activity realized by the taxpayer is recognized and allowed against income (whether active or passive income). This result is accomplished by triggering suspended losses upon disposition.

S. Rep. No. 99-313, at 725-27 (1986). Accordingly, the legislative history indicates that Congress intended the term “fully taxable transaction” to refer to a transaction constituting a final disposition of all property used in a passive activity that allows for a full accounting of all income, gains, and losses resulting from the ownership and use of such property in the activity over time. While not explicit in either the statute or legislative history, it is generally understood that Congress did not intend § 469 to be a permanent loss disallowance provision. Rather, taxpayers should be able to deduct net losses from a passive activity at a time when the ultimate economic gains and losses derived from a passive activity are finally ascertainable.

In this case, A realizes and recognizes, at the time of the foreclosure, all of the gains and losses that A will ever realize from the activity. Therefore, a foreclosure on real property comprising A’s entire interest in a passive (or former passive) activity is a fully taxable transaction for purposes of § 469(g)(1)(A). This result is not affected by whether or not the taxpayer also has COD income excludable from income under § 108(a)(1)(B).

The other thing about this ruling that pleases me is that it shows that it was smart for me to hang onto this book.

 

You never know when it will come in handy.

You can follow me on twitter @peterreillycpa.