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

Several months ago, I wrote about the Marshall decision in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Now we have Marshall II and the Court is still not cutting him a break. Mr. Marshall, a Texas resident, invested in a Connecticut partnership that purchased the U.S. Steel Tower, an iconic building in Pittsburgh].   The building was financed with a note that required interest of over 14%, which could be added to principal.  Over about 20 years Mr. Marshall received a few thousand dollars in distributions on his investment of around $150,000.  The building did not provide enough cash to cover the interest payments causing the mortgage balance to balloon from roughly 300 million to over $2 billion.  The building was foreclosed.  Mr. Marshall’s foray into Pennsylvania was rather unrewarding, he lost about $143,000, so it is understandable the he is perturbed that Pennsylvania wants him to pay a tax of over $160,000 on his “gain”.

How is there a gain ?  Well when that big mortgage balance, including all that unpaid interest is deemed to be proceeds of the foreclosure sale, so you can see how there would be a gain.  But Mr. Marshall didn’t get any benefit in Pennsylvania from all the deductions that built up that balance.  Well if he had had other Pennsylvania income he would have gotten a benefit from the deduction, it is not Pennsylvania’s fault he put all his Pennsylvania eggs into a single steel basket.  I think the Court found him to be a little tedious.  They noted that he raised all the same arguments that he had raised in Marshall I.

Mr. Marshall would probably not have had this particular problem in most other states.  Pennsylvania is peculiar in that it does not allow any carryovers and it divides income into five classes.  A loss in one class cannot offset income in a different class.  So even if the deduction for all that unpaid interest were allowed in the same year as the disposition of the building, Mr. Marshall would still have the tax to pay even though he got nothing.  Judge Patricia McCullough, who dissented, noted the absurdity of the outcome:

The rationale for the Majority’s decision, which is reiterated in its denial of all of Marshall’s exceptions, is that, by virtue of the foreclosure of the property, “Marshall is in the same position he would have been had the Partnership sold the property in 2006 for $2,628,497,551.”  The fact of the matter is that the property was not sold and Marshall is not in the same position as he would be if it had been – he has completely lost his investment. Had the property sold for this amount, Marshall would have received a return of about $4 million on his investment and, hence, he would have ample funds to pay the PIT, the imposition of which, under those circumstances, would be without dispute.

One of Marshall’s arguments that, like the others, went nowhere is that he was treated worse than the Pennsylvania partners who were able to offset the gain flowing through from the partnership with a loss on the disposition of their partnership interests.  As a non-resident Marshall was hit with the flow through, but the disposition of the interest would not be taxed (or a loss allowed) by Pennsylvania.  There may be some other explanation but I really think that in order for the other partners to have had a loss on liquidation, there had to be something wrong with the allocations.  The allocation of the gain should have brought them to even.  I would love to see those K-1s, but I guess I will have to remain mystified.

You can follow me on twitter @peterreillycpa.

Originally published on Forbes.com on August 26th, 2012