Dennis and Dorinda J. Jelle - Page 7




                                        - 7 -                                         
                                     Discussion                                       
          I.  Discharge of Indebtedness                                               
               As a general rule, the Internal Revenue Code imposes a                 
          Federal tax on the taxable income of every individual.  See sec.            
          1.  Section 61(a) defines gross income for purposes of                      
          calculating taxable income as “all income from whatever source              
          derived” and further specifies that “Income from discharge of               
          indebtedness” is included within this broad definition.  Sec.               
          61(a)(12).  The underlying rationale for such inclusion is that             
          to the extent a taxpayer is released from indebtedness, he or she           
          realizes an accession to income due to the freeing of assets                
          previously offset by the liability.  See United States v. Kirby             
          Lumber Co., 284 U.S. 1, 3 (1931).                                           
               Statutory exceptions to the above rule are set forth in                
          section 108.  Section 108(a) excludes from the operation of                 
          section 61(a) indebtedness which is discharged in a title 11                
          case, which is discharged when the taxpayer is insolvent, which             
          consists of qualified farm indebtedness, or which consists of               
          qualified real property business indebtedness.  Additional                  
          circumstances in which no income from cancellation of                       
          indebtedness need be recognized are established by case law.  For           
          instance, the refinancing of a debt may operate as an exception             
          to the requirement of inclusion.  See Zappo v. Commissioner, 81             
          T.C. 77, 85-86 (1983).  When one obligation has merely been                 






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

Last modified: May 25, 2011