- 5 -
Petitioners also claim that they “are not the guarantor of
the loan.” At trial, Mr. Schachner attempted to argue that since
he was not the “applicant”, the debt was not his. However, the
simple fact remains that Mr. Schachner signed the Application &
Promissory Note, promising to be held jointly and severally
liable for the debt. He received the proceeds of the loan
directly. Further, the sole purpose in obtaining the loan was to
enable him to purchase a computer and further his education.6
Mr. Schachner’s attempt to avoid responsibility and place the
debt and its consequences solely with his mother-in-law is
unavailing.
To the extent petitioners have made other arguments, the
Court concludes such arguments are without merit.
As no exclusion applies and the debt was clearly Mr.
Schachner’s responsibility, petitioners should have included
$7,807 of cancellation of indebtedness income in their gross
income on their 2003 tax return.
5(...continued)
indebtedness, and the debt was not qualified real property
business indebtedness. See sec. 108(a)(1)(B), (C), and (D).
6 The Court finds it worth noting that, although he never
finished his degree, Mr. Schachner has been employed with
Microsoft Corp. since 1999 and earns a substantial salary, no
doubt due in part to this education.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011