- 10 - Lumber Co., 284 U.S. 1 (1931); see also Lehew v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1987-389 (COD includes the relinquishment of a right to the repayment of advance insurance commissions or commissions related to refunded premiums). It does not naturally follow from this firmly established law, however, that a guarantor such as petitioner will always realize COD income on the discharge of a primary obligor’s debt. We have found no case in which a guarantor such as petitioner realized COD income from a discharge of debt. In Kirby Lumber, the seminal case on COD income, the debtor was primarily liable for the debt. Respondent relies on Bradford v. Commissioner, 233 F.2d 935 (6th Cir. 1956), revg. 22 T.C. 1057 (1954), and Tennessee Securities, Inc. v. Commissioner, 674 F.2d 570 (6th Cir. 1982), affg. T.C. Memo. 1978-434, to support her determination that petitioner realized COD income on the cancellation of Midwest’s obligation to ITT. We do not read these cases to support respondent’s determination, and she has not otherwise convinced us that the rationale of Kirby Lumber applies to the facts at hand. Midwest obtained a nontaxable increase in assets on account of its debt to ITT. Petitioner did not. To be sure, 6(...continued) 23 F.3d 1032, 1034 (6th Cir. 1994), affg. T.C. Memo. 1992-673.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011