Michael Friedman and Madeline Friedman - Page 14

                                       - 14 -                                         

               An element necessary for the existence of COD income under             
          section 61(a)(12) is that the taxpayer was, in fact, discharged             
          from a liability.  Whether a debt has been discharged is                    
          dependent upon the substance of the transaction.  Cozzi v.                  
          Commissioner, 88 T.C. 435, 445 (1987).  A debt is considered to             
          be discharged at the point when it becomes clear that the debt              
          will never have to be paid.  Id.  The test for determining when             
          the required identifiable event occurred is a practical                     
          assessment of all the facts and circumstances surrounding the               
          likelihood of repayment of the debt.  Id.  Any identifiable event           
          that fixes with certainty the amount to be discharged may be                
          taken into consideration.  Id. (citing United States v. S.S.                
          White Dental Manufacturing Co., 274 U.S. 398 (1927)); 2925                  
          Briarpark, Ltd. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-298.                       
               The existence of an almost imperceptible possibility that a            
          debt may be collected at some indefinite future point does not              
          preclude the recognition of COD income.  Exchange Sec. Bank v.              
          United States, 492 F.2d 1096, 1099 (5th Cir. 1974); 2925                    
          Briarpark, Ltd. v. Commissioner, supra; cf. Fidelity-Philadelphia           
          Trust Co. v. Commissioner, 23 T.C. 527, 531 (1954).  Simply                 
          because a creditor has failed to remove a debt from its books               
          does not signify that the debt has not been canceled.  Exchange             
          Sec. Bank v. United States, supra.                                          







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011