Roderick E. Carlson and Jeanette S. Carlson - Page 19




                                       - 19 -                                         
               exceed liabilities), i.e., whether assets are freed, as                
               a result of the debtor’s being discharged of indebted-                 
               ness.                                                                  
                  *       *       *       *       *       *       *                   
                    From our examination of the statutory language,                   
               the legislative history, and the relevant cases cited                  
               in the committee reports, we conclude that the analyti-                
               cal framework of the insolvency exclusion and its                      
               related provisions [in section 108] is based on the                    
               freeing-of-assets theory. * * *                                        
                    A solvent debtor is capable of meeting his finan-                 
               cial obligations because his assets equal or exceed his                
               liabilities.  That excess (if any) is not increased                    
               when an obligation that offsets assets is paid in full                 
               because the reduction in liabilities is equal to the                   
               reduction in assets.  If the reduction in liabilities                  
               exceeds the reduction in assets, then, under the                       
               freeing-of-assets theory, the solvent debtor has real-                 
               ized a gain to the extent of that excess. * * * Pursu-                 
               ant to the freeing-of-assets theory, a debtor does not                 
               realize income when discharged of a particular indebt-                 
               edness, however, if his postdischarge liabilities equal                
               or exceed his postdischarge assets (if any); i.e.,                     
               under the net assets test, the debtor’s liabilities                    
               equal or exceed his assets after the discharge (or, the                
               statutory insolvency calculation shows that the debtor                 
               is insolvent by an amount greater than or equal to the                 
               discharge of indebtedness income * * *                                 
                                                                                     
          Id. at 473-475; fn. ref. omitted.                                           
               With the foregoing in mind, we shall now consider petition-            
          ers’ argument that we follow Cole v. Commissioner, 42 B.T.A. 1110           
          (1940), in defining the word “assets” as used in the definition             
          of the term “insolvent” in section 108(d)(3).7  In Cole, the                

               7Petitioners also urge us to follow Hunt v. Commissioner,              
          T.C. Memo. 1989-335.  Petitioners argue that we previously held             
          in Hunt that, for purposes of sec. 108(a)(1)(B), the word “as-              
          sets” in sec. 108(d)(3) does not include assets exempt from the             
                                                             (continued...)           





Page:  Previous  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011