Jerry S. Payne - Page 34

                                         - 34 -                                       
          transferred to petitioner and by the $500,000 face amount of the            
          promissory note that nominally was associated with petitioner's             
          receipt of the stock.                                                       
               This $570,000 is the additional amount that petitioner is              
          required to report as taxable income for 1988 with regard to his            
          receipt of ownership of the stock of 2618 Inc.                              

          Alleged Discharge of Indebtedness Income -- 1988                            
               Generally, the difference between the face value of a debt and         
          the amount paid in satisfaction of a debt is treated as taxable             
          income to the debtor from discharge of the indebtedness.  Sec.              
          61(a)(12); United States v. Kirby Lumber Co., 284 U.S. 1, 3 (1931);         
          Babin v. Commissioner, 23 F.3d 1032, 1034 (6th Cir. 1994), affg. T.C.       
          Memo. 1992-673.  The inclusion in a taxpayer's income of an amount          
          associated with discharge of a debt is based on the increase in the         
          debtor’s assets and net worth as a result of the discharge of the           
          debt.  Dallas Transfer & Terminal Warehouse Co. v. Commissioner, 70         
          F.2d 95, 96 (5th Cir. 1934), revg. 27 B.T.A. 651 (1933).                    
               Respondent argues that petitioner did not in good faith contest        
          the nature and amount of his liability as guarantor of Payne &              
          Potter's $705,000 promissory note and that petitioner realized              
          discharge of indebtedness income of $349,500 when that liability was        
          settled.                                                                    
              Petitioner argues that his liability under the guaranty                
          constituted a mere contingent liability, that he contested in good          





Page:  Previous  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011