Charles H. Davison and Leslie B. Davison - Page 18

                                       - 18 -                                         
          980 (9th Cir. 1981); Battelstein v. IRS, 631 F.2d 1182 (5th Cir.            
          1980)(en banc).16  In Battelstein, the lender agreed to make                
          advances to cover the taxpayers' quarterly interest payments on a           
          $3 million loan.  The taxpayers never paid interest except by way           
          of these advances.  The lender notified the taxpayers each                  
          quarter of the amount of interest that was due; the taxpayers               
          would then send a check for this amount, and the lender would               
          send the taxpayers a check for an identical amount.                         
               The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit concluded that              
          the check exchanges between the lender and borrower were plainly            
          for no purpose other than to finance the taxpayers' current                 
          interest obligations and, therefore, denied the interest                    
          deduction.  In rejecting the taxpayers' reliance on the fact that           
          actual checks were exchanged, the Court of Appeals stated:                  


               16In addition, judges of two other Courts of Appeals,                  
          although not faced with the issue, have, in dicta, criticized our           
          application of the rule.  See Burck v. Commissioner, 533 F.2d 768           
          (2d Cir. 1976); Goodstein v. Commissioner, 267 F.2d 127 (1st Cir.           
          1959), affg. 30 T.C. 1178 (1958).  In Burck v. Commissioner,                
          supra, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed our             
          decision, but it did not consider the issue presented here.  In a           
          portion of the opinion where he was writing "for himself only",             
          Judge Oakes noted that he disagreed with our decision permitting            
          an interest deduction.  Id. at 770 n.3.  Judge Oakes viewed the             
          transaction at issue "as having the effect of creating a                    
          'discounted loan,'" and he concluded "that there was no payment             
          of interest by taxpayer within the meaning of 26 U.S.C. � 163(a)            
          until actual repayment of the loan."  Id.  Judge Oakes further              
          noted his agreement with the dissenting opinion in Burgess v.               
          Commissioner, 8 T.C. 47 (1947).  Id.; see also Goodstein v.                 
          Commissioner, supra at 131 (noting in dicta that it considers the           
          reasoning of the dissent in Burgess v. Commissioner, supra, to be           
          the "more persuasive").                                                     




Page:  Previous  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011