Timothy J. and Joan M. Miller - Page 38

                                        - 38 -                                        
          T.C. 1003, 1016-1017 (1989), affd. sub nom. Hildebrand v.                   
          Commissioner, 28 F.3d 1024 (10th Cir. 1994).  However, a taxpayer           
          will not be considered "at risk" with respect to borrowed amounts           
          if the amounts are protected against loss "through nonrecourse              
          financing, guarantees, stop loss agreements, or other similar               
          arrangements."  Sec. 465(b)(4); see also Oren v. Commissioner, 357          
          F.3d at 859.                                                                
               In analyzing whether a particular transaction runs afoul of            
          section 465(b)(4), the standard we have generally employed is               
          whether the taxpayer faces any "realistic possibility of economic           
          loss" on the transaction.  Levien v. Commissioner, 103 T.C. 120,            
          126 (1994), affd. without published opinion 77 F.3d 497 (11th Cir.          
          1996).27  Stated differently, where a transaction is structured so          
          as to remove any realistic possibility of the taxpayer suffering            
          an economic loss, the taxpayer is not "at risk" for the borrowed            
          amounts.  Id.; see also Oren v. Commissioner, supra.                        
               Respondent argues that petitioners were not "at risk" with             
          respect to the Huntington indebtedness because the guarantor                
          waivers executed by the Rapp Group resulted in petitioners’ being           

               27 By comparison, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit           
          employs a "worst-case scenario" standard in analyzing whether a             
          transaction runs afoul of sec. 465(b)(4).  See, e.g., Pledger v.            
          United States, 236 F.3d 315, 319 (6th Cir. 2000).  Although the             
          Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, to which this case is             
          appealable, has not expressly adopted either standard, we note              
          that it has cited the "realistic possibility of loss" standard              
          with approval.  See HGA Cinema Trust v. Commissioner, 950 F.2d              
          1357, 1362-1363 (7th Cir. 1991), affg. T.C. Memo. 1989-370.                 





Page:  Previous  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011