- 6 - addition, petitioner's father made a $10,521.57 interest payment to the bank on petitioner's behalf, which payment forms the basis for the additional interest deduction claimed by petitioners in this case. All of the interest involved with respect to the interest deductions in dispute in this proceeding; i.e. $52,428.12, is attributable to the indebtedness incurred by Stone Jessup and petitioner pursuant to the above-described line of credit with the bank. Respondent disallowed the interest deduction claimed as a miscellaneous itemized deduction upon the ground that "a note issued as 'payment' for interest is not the equivalent of cash".2 During 1991, petitioners claimed deductions amounting to $1,142.88 for the premiums paid for the credit life insurance policies petitioner was required to obtain pursuant to the above- discussed credit arrangement with the bank. The bank was the named beneficiary with respect to each of the relevant life insurance policies. Respondent disallowed the deductions, explaining in the notice of deficiency that the "expense related to the production of corporate income". OPINION Deductions for Interest 2Respondent's explanation does not address the portion of the interest expense deduction attributable to the payment of interest by petitioner's father on petitioner's behalf. We consider the different ways in which the interest was "paid" in separate sections of this opinion.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011