Raymond K. and Minerva R. Mason - Page 12

                                       - 12 -                                         
          interest to be repaid first on a below-market loan under section            
          7872.                                                                       
               We think that the provision in section 1.7872-13(c),                   
          Proposed Income Tax Regs., is more appropriately viewed as only             
          applying to payments of below-market stated interest.  In this              
          context, the parenthetical "if any" makes sense, as there may               
          well be no stated interest (as in the case at hand).  Our                   
          interpretation finds support in an example given later in the               
          proposed regulations.  Section 1.7872-13(d), Example (2),                   
          Proposed Income Tax Regs., 50 Fed. Reg. 33569 (Aug. 20, 1985),              
          treats partial repayments on an interest-free demand loan as                
          repayments of principal only, thereby requiring a separate                  
          calculation of forgone interest.                                            
               Petitioners next attempt to bootstrap respondent's                     
          adjustments to RSI's interest income and petitioners' itemized              
          deductions for interest expense under section 7872 (which                   
          petitioners do not contest) into evidence that interest equal to            
          the AFR was paid in 1987 and 1988 on the loans.  Petitioners                
          ignore the fact that, as the adjustments by respondent were made            
          after the years in question to reflect what petitioners and RSI             
          should have reported on their returns, the adjustments cannot               
          conceivably be relied upon to show that interest was in fact paid           
          in those amounts.                                                           
               Petitioners posit that "the Commissioner has already enjoyed           
          the tax benefits of the interest payments and is now [unjustly]             




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

Last modified: May 25, 2011