City of Columbus, Ohio - Page 5

                                        - 5 -                                         
          investment-type property.  It is the scope of "investment-type              
          property" that is at issue herein.  Section 1.148-1(b), Income              
          Tax Regs. states:                                                           
               Investment-type property includes any property, other                  
               than property described in section 148(b)(2)(A), (B),                  
               (C), or (E), that is held principally as a passive                     
               vehicle for the production of income.  Except as                       
               otherwise provided, a prepayment for property or                       
               services is investment-type property if a principal                    
               purpose for prepaying is to receive an investment                      
               return from the time the prepayment is made until the                  
               time payment otherwise would be made.  * * *                           
               Unquestionably, petitioner, by prepaying the remaining city            
          obligation, extinguished its preexisting debt. While petitioner             
          received an economic benefit from prepaying its debt, we do not             
          think it was paying for property.  Petitioner purchased or                  
          received nothing, beyond the State fund obligation it received              
          under the 1967 transaction, other than the discount for prepaying           
          its obligation to the State.  Such discounts normally are                   
          considered discharge of indebtedness income, not investments.               
          Sec. 61(a)(12); United States v. Kirby Lumber Co., 284 U.S. 1               
          (1931); Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc. v. United                 
          States, 10 F.3d 68 (2d Cir. 1993); Michaels v. Commissioner, 87             
          T.C. 1412, 1417 (1986) ("the discount here at issue was realized            
          by the prepayment, which is not considered a sale or exchange").            
          In cases where a purchase-money debt is owed to the seller, the             
          reduction generally is treated as a purchase price adjustment.              
          Sec. 108(e)(5); House v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-92.                  






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011