- 6 -
discharged indebtedness, because he had no control over the
series of incidents that culminated in the discharge. To the
extent we understand petitioner's argument, it proceeds as
follows. He claims that, in 1994, he was forced to retire early
from his profession as a teacher and that, as a result of the
financial difficulties he encountered because of a reduced
pension, he defaulted on his payment obligations. According to
petitioner, the financial difficulties which ensued after his
retirement were a direct consequence of his arrest nearly 20
years earlier by two police officers who also served on the local
board of education——an arrest he calls unlawful and in violation
of his constitutional rights. Thus, in petitioner's view, the
improper actions by local authorities had caused him to realize
discharge of indebtedness income.
While we do not question the sincerity with which petitioner
asserts this view, there is no merit to his argument. Congress
did not create an exception to alleviate the kind of hardship
that petitioner describes, and we must apply the law as written.
Accordingly, under section 61(a)(12), petitioner must include the
$31,525 discharge of indebtedness in gross income.
To reflect the foregoing and concessions by the parties,
Decision will be entered under
Rule 155.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6
Last modified: May 25, 2011