Edward A. Robinson III and Diana R. Robinson - Page 112




                                        - 86 -                                         
               Petitioners contend that they should be permitted to deduct             
          interest paid on a deficiency arising from disallowed Schedule C             
          deductions relating to a sole proprietorship, a law firm.                    
               Although section 163(h)(1) disallows personal interest                  
          deductions, the reach of that section is truncated by section                
          163(h)(2)(A), which excepts interest “properly allocable” to a               
          trade or business from the definition of personal interest.                  
          Congress did not provide a definition for interest “properly                 
          allocable” to a trade or business.  In interpreting what Congress            
          meant by “properly allocable” to a trade or business, however,               
          courts should give the phrase “properly allocable” its usual or              
          plain meaning.  United States v. Urrabazo, 234 F.3d 904 (5th Cir.            
          2000).  A reasonable reading of the phrase “properly allocable”              
          would conclude that the phrase means fairly or correctly relating            
          to a trade or business.  Interest paid on deficiencies arising               
          from deductions taken by a sole proprietorship should fall within            
          this class of interest.  Courts should only depart from the plain            
          language of a statute to, “avoid a result so bizarre that                    
          Congress could not have intended it”.  Withrow v. Roell, 288 F.3d            
          199, 203 (5th Cir. 2002).  Reaching the conclusion that the                  
          interest paid on a deficiency arising from a sole proprietorship             
          is “properly allocable” to a trade or business is surely not a               
          bizarre result.                                                              
               The intent of Congress is best determined by examining the              
          language of the statute.  Dial One of the Mid-South, Inc. v.                 




Page:  Previous  76  77  78  79  80  81  82  83  84  85  86  87  88  89  90  91  92  93  94  95  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011