- 7 - card liability. Third, pursuant to the above-referenced instructions, in a nonlending transaction, such as occurred here, any nonprincipal amounts are included in the debt. Thus, it appears that petitioners are incorrectly interpreting the above- referenced instructions or are incorrectly categorizing their transaction as a lending transaction. Further, applicable case law establishes that in situations where the facts and circumstances are such that indebtedness from a credit card account is being discharged, the amount of income as a result of the discharge of this indebtedness is an amount equal to the difference between the amount due on the obligation and the amount paid for the discharge, or if no consideration is paid for the discharge, then the entire amount of the debt is considered the amount of income that the debtor must include in income. See Earnshaw v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-191, affd. 150 Fed. Appx. 745 (10th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, we conclude that petitioners received discharge of indebtedness income of $6,583. Petitioners alternatively argue that the amount of $6,583 was a reduction of charges agreed to by MBNA in exchange for petitioners’ prompt payment of $14,937.26. In other words, petitioners argue that they contested the amount of the debt with MBNA and that through negotiations it was established that $14,937.26 was the total amount of petitioners’ credit card debt.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011