Charles H. Davison and Leslie B. Davison - Page 14

                                       - 14 -                                         
          check on this account in the amount of $4,219.33 to cover                   
          $4,136.44 of interest due on the original loan plus $82.89 of               
          prepaid interest on the $4,000 loan.  At the time the taxpayer's            
          check was drawn, the taxpayer had $3,180.79 in his account in               
          addition to the $4,000 borrowed on December 20, 1941.                       
               In a Court-reviewed opinion, we allowed the deduction.  We             
          rejected the Commissioner's argument that the taxpayer had simply           
          substituted a note in place of the interest payable.  We found              
          that the taxpayer did not apply for the loan for the sole purpose           
          of obtaining funds to pay interest, and the lender did not grant            
          the loan for that exclusive purpose.  We also found that the                
          taxpayer had several bills that were due, needed sufficient funds           
          to pay them as well as the interest, and commingled the loan                
          proceeds with other funds in his account, causing them to lose              
          their identity.  As a result, we found that the loan proceeds               
          could not be traced to the payment of interest.  Id. at 50.                 
               Six judges dissented from the majority's holding.  They                
          believed that the facts demonstrated that the taxpayer borrowed             
          the $4,000 for the purpose of paying interest.  They believed               
          that the substance of what occurred was no different than where a           
          taxpayer simply executes a note to the lender in satisfaction of            
          the current interest obligation.                                            
               In Burgess v. Commissioner, supra, the purpose of the second           
          loan was obviously an important factor.  However, our subsequent            
          opinions relying on Burgess began to focus mostly on whether the            




Page:  Previous  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011