- 5 -
allows an interest deduction to a taxpayer, who, in the
situations contemplated in the regulations, is not directly
liable on the mortgage indebtedness. Id.
This Court, relying on the same rationale underlying the
interpretation in Golder of section 1.163-1(b), Income Tax Regs.,
has held that taxpayers who do not hold legal title to property,
but who establish that they are equitable owners of the property,
are entitled to deduct mortgage interest paid by them with
respect to the property. Daya v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-
360; Trans v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-233; Usla v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-551.
Petitioner contends that he is entitled to deduct home
mortgage interest because: (1) He was the owner of the condo in
2000, and (2) he paid the interest during that year. Respondent
disagrees, contending that petitioner has not established that:
(a) He had any legal or equitable interest in the condo during
2000, (b) he was legally liable for the indebtedness on the
condo, and (c) the claimed deduction of $6,600 (i) was an
interest expense and (ii) was paid.
Petitioner testified that, around November or December of
1999, he purchased the condo from his mother, Elsie Gray Tiernan
(Mrs. Tiernan), for $30,000. Petitioner claims that the
acquisition of the condo was financed entirely by Mrs. Tiernan.
In support, petitioner provided a copy of a one-page typewritten
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011