Raymond K. and Minerva R. Mason - Page 11

                                       - 11 -                                         
          to avoid section 7872.  In so arguing, petitioners ignore the               
          language of section 1.7872-3(c)(1), Proposed Income Tax Regs., 50           
          Fed. Reg. 33559 (Aug. 20, 1985), which provides that "Section               
          7872 does not apply to any loan which has sufficient stated                 
          interest." (Emphasis added.)  In any event, no evidence                     
          demonstrates that any interest was actually paid in 1987 and                
          1988.  Indeed, all evidence points to the contrary.  No interest            
          income was shown on RSI's Forms 1120, nor was any interest                  
          expense reflected on petitioners' returns for the years at issue.           
          Also telling is the fact that both petitioners' and RSI's                   
          financial ledgers indicate that all payments by petitioners to              
          RSI reduced the outstanding principal of the loans dollar-for-              
          dollar by the amount of the payments.                                       
               Furthermore, petitioners ignore the parenthetical language             
          "if any" emphasized above.  Petitioners theorize that the words             
          "unpaid interest" refer to imputed interest computed at the AFR             
          under section 7872, and thus assert that all repayments should be           
          treated first as payments of such interest by the borrower.  In             
          that connection, petitioners posit, without pointing to any                 
          authority, that section 7872 applies only in the narrow                     
          circumstance where a taxpayer learns after the end of the                   
          relevant tax year that his repayments are insufficient to satisfy           
          first all of the interest owing at the AFR.  However, if                    
          petitioners' interpretation were correct, the parenthetical                 
          language "if any" would be superfluous, as there would always be            




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011