Jerry Myers Johnson - Page 5




                                        - 5 -                                         

          property's fair market value, or $55,014, less the forgiven                 
          interest of $23,489.                                                        
               Generally, a taxpayer must include in gross income a dis-              
          charge of indebtedness.  See sec. 61(a)(12); sec. 1.61-12(a),               
          Income Tax Regs.  The rationale for this principle is that, when            
          a debt is forgiven, formerly encumbered assets of the borrower              
          become freely available for his use and enjoyment.  Since the               
          loan does not have to be repaid, the newly freed assets con-                
          stitute income.                                                             
               There are, however, exceptions to this general rule.                   
          Section 108(a) provides that a taxpayer may exclude from gross              
          income the discharge of indebtedness if the discharge occurs in a           
          bankruptcy case, or, alternatively, when the taxpayer is insol-             
          vent, or if the indebtedness is qualified farm or business real             
          estate debt.  Petitioner concedes that he was not insolvent                 
          within the meaning of section 108.  Moreover, nothing in the                
          record suggests that the other circumstances described above                
          exist here.  Similarly, there is no indication that PNC intended            
          to make a gift to petitioner.  See Commissioner v. Jacobson, 336            
          U.S. 28, 51 (1949) (a gratuitous forgiveness of debt is a gift,             
          resulting in no income to the debtor); Helvering v. American                
          Dental Co., 318 U.S. 322 (1943).                                            
               Rather than dispute the facts in this case, petitioner                 
          argues that he is entitled to exclude the full amount of                    





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011