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

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.