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

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.