WORKING OUT AND RESTRUCTURING
DISTRESSED DEBT – TAX TRAPS AND TECHNIQUES
TO ACHIEVE FAVORABLE OUTCOMES
State Bar of Wisconsin
60th Annual Tax School
December 1, 2009
Richard A. Latta
Michael Best & Friedrich LLP
One South Pinckney Street, Suite 700
Madison, WI 53703
(608) 257-3501
ralatta@michaelbest.com
www.michaelbest.com
© Michael Best & Friedrich LLP 2009
MISSION
To legally reduce to a nominal amount the income tax paid upon
debt and mortgage restructuring, workout or forgiveness of debt
(a/k/a “Cancellation of Debt” or “COD”).
© 2009 Michael Best & Friedrich LLP
2
VISION
Create a toolbox that allows practitioners to address debt and
mortgage restructuring, workout and forgiveness situations.
© 2009 Michael Best & Friedrich LLP
3
WHAT’S THE PROBLEM?
If the bank is willing to restructure the debt and forgive part of it – that’s great!
But –

United States v. Kirby Lumber Co., 284 U.S. 1 (1931) – The U.S. Supreme Court
established the rule that a debtor realizes (and must recognize) income when
discharged of indebtedness. That is, when a debtor is relieved of indebtedness
without full payment of the amount owed, the debtor realizes taxable income in the
form of COD.

In Kirby Lumber, the taxpayer issued bonds for which it received par value. In the
same year, the taxpayer repurchased some of those bonds in the open market for
less than their par value issue price. The Supreme Court held the taxpayer must
recognize income in an amount (in that case $137,521) equal to the difference
between the issue price and the repurchase price of the bonds. In so holding, the
Supreme Court reasoned: “As a result of its [taxpayer’s] dealings, it made
available $137,521.30 [of] assets previously offset by the obligation of the bonds
now extinct.”
© 2009 Michael Best & Friedrich LLP
4
KIRBY LUMBER IS CODIFIED
IRC § 61(a)(12) says:
“[G]ross income means all income from whatever source derived,
including …
(12) Income from discharge of indebtedness … .”
© 2009 Michael Best & Friedrich LLP
5
HOW WILL YOU PAY THE TAX ON THE COD?
© 2009 Michael Best & Friedrich LLP
6
WHAT TRIGGERS COD/TAXABLE GAIN?
The two most common COD events are:
 Forgiveness of debt – Kirby Lumber; IRC § 61(a)(12).
 Modification of debt/restructuring – Treas. Reg. § 1.1001-3.
Taxable gain under IRC § 1001(c) arises where there is:
 Foreclosures, deeds-in lieu and other transactions where an asset is
transferred to satisfy a debt. Rev. Rul. 90-16, 1990-1 CB 12.
 A “debt shift” in a partnership that gives rise to taxable gain as a result
of IRC § 752(b).
© 2009 Michael Best & Friedrich LLP
7
BASIC TOOLS
The principal tool to exclude COD is in one section – IRC § 108:
 Per the legislative history of the 1980 Bankruptcy Tax Act, Section 108
was enacted to permit taxpayers who otherwise would have taxable
income resulting from forgiveness of debt to not be burdened with an
immediate tax liability. See S. Rpt. 96-1035, 1980-2 C.B. at 624 (1980).
But, there is no exclusion for taxable gain arising under § 1001(c).
So, depending upon the facts, COD that can be excluded from income
can be better than taxable gain.
© 2009 Michael Best & Friedrich LLP
8
 Five principal parts of IRC § 108, which provides the exclusion from
income for COD, are where the:
Discharge occurs in bankruptcy (a Title 11 case); § 108(a)(1)(A).
Discharge occurs when the taxpayer is “insolvent”; § 108(a)(1)(B).
Debt is “qualified farm indebtedness”; § 108(a)(1)(C).
Debt discharged is “qualified real property business indebtedness”;
§108(a)(1)(D).
 Debt discharged is “qualified principal residence indebtedness” discharged
before January 1, 2013; § 108(a)(1)(E).




 There’s also a new five-year deferral – not exclusion – for COD to 2014
to 2018 for COD arising in 2009 or 2010; § 108(i). An election to defer
under § 108(i) takes precedence over the exclusions in (A) to (E),
above. § 108(i)(5)(C).
© 2009 Michael Best & Friedrich LLP
9
NOTHING IS FREE – SO WHAT’S THE COST?
The cost of exclusion of COD is the debtor must reduce tax attributes
by the amount of the COD excluded. § 108(b)(1).
 Unless all seven of the tax attributes listed in § 108(b) are exhausted,
the exclusion under § 108 is not a permanent exclusion but is, in effect,
a deferral of COD.
 If all seven tax attributes are exhausted, then the exclusion is
permanent.
© 2009 Michael Best & Friedrich LLP
10
WHAT ARE THE ATTRIBUTES?
The seven attributes reduced under § 108(b)(2) are:
(A) Net operating losses (a/k/a “NOLs”).
(B) General business credits allowable under § 38.
(C) The minimum tax credit available under § 53(b).
(D) Capital loss carryovers.
(E) The tax basis of property of the taxpayer (note: this is “tax basis” and
not “depreciable basis” – more on this below).
(F) Any passive activity loss or credit carryovers under IRC § 469(b).
(G) Foreign tax credits allowable under § 27.
© 2009 Michael Best & Friedrich LLP
11
AMOUNT OF REDUCTION
The reductions are made after determination of tax for the taxable year
in which the COD occurs. § 108(b)(4)(A).
 For attributes in dollar amounts, the attributes are reduced on a dollarfor-dollar basis of the excluded COD. § 108(b)(3)(A).
 For tax credits, the reduction is 33-1/3 cents for each dollar of excluded
COD. § 108(b)(3)(B).
© 2009 Michael Best & Friedrich LLP
12
SPECIAL ELECTION FOR DEPRECIABLE PROPERTY
The attribute reduction under § 108(b)(2) for basis is for any “basis of
the property of the taxpayer.” § 108(b)(2)(E).
Under IRC § 108(b)(5), there is a special election to apply the attribute
reduction first against depreciable property. As a result of applying the
attribute election against depreciable property, this special election:
 Reduces future depreciation of the taxpayer – thereby highlighting the
deferral aspect of § 108.
 Only applies to depreciable property -- so land and other assets that
are not depreciable don’t qualify for the special election.
© 2009 Michael Best & Friedrich LLP
13
COD FROM BANKRUPTCY
The exclusion from COD arising in bankruptcy only applies if:
 The taxpayer is under the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court; and
 The COD arises as a result of a forgiveness of debt by the court or
pursuant to a plan approved by the bankruptcy court. § 108(d)(2).
So, the exclusion does not apply to COD that arises from a discharge
either before the bankruptcy case or after termination of the
bankruptcy.
© 2009 Michael Best & Friedrich LLP
14
INSOLVENCY EXCEPTION
In light of the stigma associated with bankruptcy, the most commonly
used COD exclusion is the “insolvency” exception under §108(a)(1)(B).
 The term “insolvent” means the excess of liabilities over the fair market
value of a taxpayer’s assets. § 108(d)(3).
 The test of insolvency is determined immediately before the discharge
giving rise to the COD. § 108(d)(3).
© 2009 Michael Best & Friedrich LLP
15
WHAT’S AN ASSET?
The definition of what is an “asset” for purposes of “insolvency” has
been the subject of much litigation. The principal question is whether
assets exempt from the claims of creditors under applicable state law
are included in “assets” for purposes of the insolvency determination.
 Ultimately, this is a question of policy because under the bankruptcy
exception assets exempt from creditors under state law are not treated
as an asset of the taxpayer.
© 2009 Michael Best & Friedrich LLP
16
IS THERE A “FREEING OF ASSETS”?
After two decades of courts and taxpayers taking multiple positions on
what is an asset, the tax court in Carlson v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 87
(2001) held:
 The legislative history showed that the Bankruptcy Tax Act of 1980
adopted a “freeing of assets theory”.
 Hence, assets exempt from the claims of creditors under applicable
state law are included when determining the fair market value of a
taxpayer’s assets for purposes of ascertaining whether the taxpayer is
“insolvent”.
 The Court’s rationale was if a taxpayer’s total assets – including exempt
assets – exceeds the debtor’s liabilities, the debtor has the ability to pay
an immediate tax on income from COD.
© 2009 Michael Best & Friedrich LLP
17
WHAT’S A LIABILITY?
The term “liability” for purposes of insolvency was no easier to answer
but only took 17 years after the Bankruptcy Tax Act of 1980 to resolve.
 In Merkel v. Commissioner, 109 T.C. 463 (1997), the Tax Court held that
the term “liabilities” requires the taxpayer to prove that the taxpayer will
be called upon to pay the obligation in the amount claimed.
 Failure to prove the taxpayer would be called upon to pay the amount of
the obligation results in the obligation not being a “liability” for purposes
of the insolvency determination.
© 2009 Michael Best & Friedrich LLP
18
WATCH THE SPECIAL RULES
In the case of individuals and C corporations, the tests for bankruptcy
and insolvency are straight forward. The determination is made at the
individual or C corporation level.
 For pass-through entities, the rules are not as easy.
© 2009 Michael Best & Friedrich LLP
19
FOR PARTNERSHIPS
Where the entity in bankruptcy or potentially insolvent is a partnership,
then the exclusion of COD is applied at the partner, not the partnership,
level. § 108(d)(6).
 This means that if a partner is not in bankruptcy or insolvent, then the
partner will have taxable COD from the discharge of debt, despite
what’s occurring with the partnership.
© 2009 Michael Best & Friedrich LLP
20
WHAT ABOUT S CORPS?
For S corporations, the provisions of § 108 are generally applied at the
S corp level.
 So, if the S corp is in bankruptcy or insolvent, then the bankruptcy or
insolvency determination is made at the S corp, and not the
shareholder, level. § 108(d)(7).
 This result was affirmed by Gitlitz v. Commissioner, 531 U.S. 206
(2001), which permitted basis for COD excluded by the S corp, thereby
allowing utilization of NOLs by the S corp shareholders. This decision
was reversed by Congress in 2002 (i.e., no basis for excluded income
under § 1367(a)).
 So there may be situations where interposing an S corporation may be
beneficial.
© 2009 Michael Best & Friedrich LLP
21
OTHER SPECIAL RULES
There are a series of special rules in § 108(e) that can be traps for the
unwary. They include:
 Accrued interest and expenses – there is no income (i.e., no COD) to
the extent that the payment of a liability would give rise to a deduction.
§ 108(e)(2).
 This means if a cash basis taxpayer has not previously deducted the amount,
then the forgiveness of the expense does not give rise to COD.
 Related party acquisitions of debt – if a party related to an obligor
acquires the obligor’s debt, the acquisition is treated as if the obligor
reacquired the debt, thereby potentially creating COD. § 108(e)(4).
 The rule also includes an expanded definition of who counts as “related” that
is broader than general relationship rules under the Internal Revenue Code.
© 2009 Michael Best & Friedrich LLP
22
OTHER SPECIAL RULES (cont.)
 Stock for debt – where a company exchanges stock for debt, the
exchange will typically give rise to COD. § 108(e)(6), (e)(7) and (e)(8).
 Partnership interest for debt – while for many years taxpayers took the
position that an exchange of a partnership interest for debt did not give
rise to COD, in 2004 Congress changed the Code to provide that a
partnership interest exchanged for recourse or nonrecourse debt gives
rise to COD. § 108(e)(8).
 Debt for debt exchanges – also give rise to COD to the extent of the
“issue price” of the new debt instrument (determined under the OID
rules) is less than the amount of debt discharged. § 108(e)(10).
© 2009 Michael Best & Friedrich LLP
23
WHAT ABOUT LAND CONTRACTS?
If there is a reduction in the purchase price between a seller and a
buyer where a note between the seller and the buyer is reduced, then
the reduction can be treated as a purchase price adjustment and not
as COD. § 108(e)(5).
 This special rule for purchase money debt reduction is especially
helpful when the buyer is not in bankruptcy and not insolvent.
© 2009 Michael Best & Friedrich LLP
24
WHAT IS “RECOURSE” v. “NONRECOURSE” DEBT?
The definition of “recourse” and “nonrecourse” debt is one of the most
difficult issues yet to be resolved.
 In light of carve-outs in loan agreements (e.g., liability of borrower for
environmental issues), it becomes difficult to determine whether debt is
recourse or nonrecourse.
© 2009 Michael Best & Friedrich LLP
25
§ 1001 GAIN RULES
The § 1001 rules regarding taxable gain highlight why it is important to
determine whether the underlying debt is recourse versus
nonrecourse.
 Recourse debt receives bifurcated treatment. Treas. Reg. § 1.10012(c), Example 8.
 Nonrecourse debt gives rise to taxable gain. § 7701(g).
© 2009 Michael Best & Friedrich LLP
26
BIFURCATED TREATMENT FOR RECOURSE DEBT
Where a debt is recourse, then the amount of debt forgiveness that
exceeds the fair market value of property transferred is treated as
COD, and the fair market value of the property transferred becomes
the amount realized for determining gain under § 1001.
 Example 8, Treas. Reg. § 1.001-2(c) describes how this calculation
works. It says:
In 1980, F transfers to a creditor an asset with a fair market value
of $6,000 and the creditor discharges $7,500 of indebtedness for
which F is personally liable. The amount realized on the
disposition of the asset is its fair market value ($6,000). In
addition, F has income from the discharge of indebtedness of
$1,500 ($7,500 minus $6,000).
© 2009 Michael Best & Friedrich LLP
27
IMPACT ON FORECLOSURE OF PROPERTY
Although foreclosures typically result in an economic loss to the obligor
and owner of the property, it is common for the owner of the property to
realize taxable gain due to the low tax basis of the property.
 Although an involuntary act, foreclosure is treated as a sale or exchange
of the property by the taxpayer.
 As shown by Example 8, the gain or loss from the foreclosure is
determined in the same manner as an ordinary sale of property.
 For recourse debt, the amount above the fair market value of the property
is then treated as COD.
 Under the applicable case law, the amount bid in at a foreclosure
proceeding will, absent other evidence, be treated as the fair market
value of the property. See Carlson v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 87 (2001).
 In a foreclosure transaction where there is recourse debt, the transaction
is bifurcated and treated as part sale or exchange under § 1001 to the
extent of the “fair market value” of the property, and part discharge of
indebtedness resulting in COD.
© 2009 Michael Best & Friedrich LLP
28
WHAT ABOUT IF THE DEBT IS NONRECOURSE?
The amount realized upon the foreclosure of property securing
nonrecourse debt is equal to the face amount of the debt discharged,
regardless of the property’s fair market value. Tufts v. Commissioner,
461 U.S. 300 (1983); § 7701(g).
 The importance is that there is no exclusion for taxable gain.
 So while the rate for taxable gain is currently lower than COD, there are
situations where taxpayers will have a better result with a recourse debt
as compared to nonrecourse debt.
© 2009 Michael Best & Friedrich LLP
29
CONSEQUENCES OF DEBT MODIFICATION-SECTION 1001 REGULATIONS
One of the issues that can arise in a debt restructuring is whether a
modification to the terms of a loan results in the issuance of new debt
under the debt modification rules of Treas. Reg. § 1.1001-3. If a
modification results in the issuance of new debt, then there can be:
 Recognition of income or loss on the part of creditors, and
 Possible COD income to the debtor.
© 2009 Michael Best & Friedrich LLP
30
THE COTTAGE SAVINGS CASE
Treas. Reg. § 1.1001-1(a) provides income realization occurs “from the
exchange of property for other property differing materially either in
kind or in extent … .”
These regulations were construed by the Supreme Court in Cottage
Savings Ass’n v. Comr., 499 U.S. 554 (1991), where there was an
exchange of a 90% “participation interest” in a portfolio of mortgages
for a 90% participation interest in another portfolio of mortgages of
equivalent value. In Cottage Savings, the Supreme Court held:
 There was an event of realization for purposes of § 1001(a).
 The “materially different” standard of Treas. Reg. § 1.1001-1 was
satisfied, so there was an exchange resulting in the recognition of a tax
loss.
© 2009 Michael Best & Friedrich LLP
31
TREAS. REG. § 1.1001-3
In 1996, the IRS issued regulations that provide an exchange of an
instrument for another instrument differing materially either in kind or in
extent is deemed to occur if there is a “significant modification” of a
debt instrument. Treas. Reg. § 1.1001-3(b).
 In general, a modification is defined as an alteration in any legal right or
obligation. Treas. Reg. § 1.1001-3(c)(1)(i).
 The regulations are highly fact specific—so if a modification is within the
scope of what’s described below, check the regulations.
© 2009 Michael Best & Friedrich LLP
32
WHAT’S A “SIGNIFICANT MODIFICATION”?
Generally, a modification is a significant modification if based on all the
facts and circumstances the legal rights of obligations that are altered
and the degree to which they are altered are economically significant.
Treas. Reg. § 1.1001-3(e)(1).
 Where a series of modifications has taken place, the modifications are
considered collectively, so a series of modifications may be significant
even though the individual modifications are not. Id.
© 2009 Michael Best & Friedrich LLP
33
EXAMPLES OF “SIGNIFICANT MODIFICATIONS”
Significant modifications include:
 Change of Yield of More Than 25 Basis Points. A change in the annual
yield by more than:
 ¼ of 1% (i.e., 25 basis points), or
 5% of the annual yield of the unmodified instrument (i.e., 0.05 x annualized
yield). Treas. Reg. §§ 1.1001-3(e)(2)(ii) and 1.1001-3(g), Example 3.
 Deferral of Scheduled Payments. A change in the timing of payments if
it results in the material deferral of scheduled payments. Treas. Reg.
§ 1.1001-3(e)(3)(i).
 There is a safe-harbor period for where the first scheduled payment is
deferred and extends the scheduled payments for the lesser of (i) five years
or (ii) 50% of the original term of the instrument. Treas. Reg. § 1.10013(e)(3)(ii).
© 2009 Michael Best & Friedrich LLP
34
EXAMPLES OF “SIGNIFICANT MODIFICATIONS”
(cont.)
 New Obligor on Recourse Debt. Subject to limited exceptions, a
substitution of a new obligor on a recourse debt instrument is a
significant modification. Treas. Reg. § 1.1001-3(e)(4)(i).
 Alteration of Collateral on Recourse Debt. The alteration of (1) the
collateral, (2) a guarantee, or (3) other form of credit enhancement
relating to a recourse debt, if the modification results in a change in
payment expectations. Treas. Reg. § 1.1001-3(e)(4)(iv)(A).
 Substantial Change in Collateral on Nonrecourse Debt. Subject to
limited exceptions, (1) an alteration of a substantial amount of the
collateral, (2) a change in guarantee, or (3) other form of credit
enhancement relating to a nonrecourse debt instrument is a substantial
modification. Treas. Reg. § 1.1001-3(e)(4)(iv)(B).
 However the addition of a building or improvement as part of the collateral
may not be a significant modification. Treas. Reg. § 1.1001-3(g), Example 9.
© 2009 Michael Best & Friedrich LLP
35
EXAMPLES OF “SIGNIFICANT MODIFICATIONS”
(cont.)
 Change in Priority. A change in the priority of a debt instrument relative to
other debt of the obligor if the change in priority results in a change in
payment expectations. Treas. Reg. § 1.1001-3(e)(4)(v).
 Change From Nonrecourse to Recourse. A change from a recourse debt
to a nonrecourse debt or vice versa, subject to exceptions for (1) certain
tax exempt bonds and (2) modification of a recourse debt instrument to a
nonrecourse debt where the debt continues to be secured by the original
collateral and the modification does not change payment expectations.
Treas. Reg. § 1.1001-3(e)(5)(ii).
© 2009 Michael Best & Friedrich LLP
36
WHAT’S NOT A SIGNIFICANT MODIFICATION?
What’s not a significant modification includes:
 Modification by Operation of the Original Instrument. Generally, a
significant modification doesn’t include an alteration that occurs by
operation of the original instrument.
 This includes a unilateral exercise of a right under the instrument, subject to
enumerated exceptions. Treas. Reg. §§ 1.1001-3(c)(1); -3(c)(2)(iii).
 However, a change in obligor or in the nature of the instrument from recourse to
nonrecourse or vice versa is a significant modification even if it occurs by
operation of the original debt instrument. Treas. Reg. § 1.1001-3(c)(2).
 Change in Accounting or Financial Covenants. A modification that adds,
deletes or alters customary accounting or financial covenants is not a
significant modification. Treas. Reg. § 1.1001-3(e)(6).
© 2009 Michael Best & Friedrich LLP
37
WHAT’S NOT A SIGNIFICANT MODIFICATION?
(cont.)
 Failure to Perform. The failure of the obligor to perform under the debt
obligation. Treas. Reg. § 1.1001-3(c)(4).
 Agreement to Forbear. Agreement by the lender to forebear collection or
temporarily waive an acceleration clause or similar default right, unless
the forbearance exceeds (i) two years, (ii) any additional period in which
the parties conduct good faith negotiations, or (iii) the borrower is in
bankruptcy. Treas. Reg. § 1.1001-3(c)(4)(ii).
© 2009 Michael Best & Friedrich LLP
38
COD INCOME
Where there is either an (1) actual or (2) deemed exchange of debt
instruments, the exchange constitutes a satisfaction of the old debt
instrument by the issuance of the new debt instrument that can give
rise to COD.
 General Rule – COD If Property Given Is Less Than Adjusted Issue
Price. Generally, outside the area of debt-for-debt exchanges, a debtor
realizes COD to the extent the fair market value of property or the
amount of money given in satisfaction of a debt is less than the
adjusted issue price (as defined in Treas. Reg. § 1.1275-1(b)) of the
debt. Treas. Reg. § 1.61-12(c)(2)(ii).
 Rule for Debt for Debt Exchanges. If a debt instrument is issued in
satisfaction of indebtedness, the obligor is treated as having satisfied
the old indebtedness with an amount of money equal to the issue price
of the new debt instrument for purposes of determining the obligor’s
income from the discharge of indebtedness. § 108(e)(10). For this
purpose, generally, issue price is determined under §§ 1273 and 1274.
© 2009 Michael Best & Friedrich LLP
39
HOW IS ISSUE PRICE DETERMINED?
The rules for determining the issue price of new debt issued for old debt
are different for (a) publicly traded debt, as compared to (b) nonpublicly
traded debt.
 Publicly Traded Debt. If the new issue or the old issue is publicly traded,
the issue price of the new issue is determined by the public trading price.
§ 1273(b)(3).
© 2009 Michael Best & Friedrich LLP
40
HOW IS ISSUE PRICE DETERMINED? (cont.)
 Non-Publicly Traded Debt. If neither the new nor the old debt is publicly
traded, the issue price of the new debt must be determined under the
rules of § 1274, if that section applies. § 1273(b)(4).
 Section 1274 applies to debt instruments issued for property where some or
all of the payments are due more than six months after the sale or exchange,
subject to a number of exceptions and limitations, including an exception for
(1) sales involving total payments of $250,000 or less, and (2) sales of farms
with a sales price not exceeding $1,000,000. § 1274(c).
© 2009 Michael Best & Friedrich LLP
41
HOW IS ISSUE PRICE DETERMINED? (cont.)
 Adequate Stated Interest. The issue price of a debt instrument issued
for property equals the stated principal amount where there is
adequate stated interest. §§ 1274(a)(1); 1274(c)(1)(A).
 Adequate Stated Interest. Whether there is adequate stated interest
generally depends on whether the interest rate exceeds the “Applicable
Federal Rate” (or “AFR”). For October 2009 the AFR (compounded on
a semi-annual basis) is (see Rev. Rul. 2009-33):
 Loans not over 3 years
 Loans over 3 years but not over 9 years
 Loans over 9 years
© 2009 Michael Best & Friedrich LLP
0.75%
2.64%
4.06%
42
HOW IS ISSUE PRICE DETERMINED? (cont.)
 Not Adequate Stated Interest. Where there is not adequate stated
interest, the issue price of the debt instrument is its imputed principal
amount. § 1274(c)(1)(A)(ii).
 Imputed Principal Amount. The imputed principal amount is defined as the
sum of the present values of all payments due under the debt instrument,
computed using a discount rate equal to the applicable federal rate
compounded semiannually. IRC § 1274(b).
© 2009 Michael Best & Friedrich LLP
43
HOW IS ISSUE PRICE DETERMINED? (cont.)
 Interest Above Applicable Federal Rate. Generally, where neither the
new nor the old issue is publicly traded and § 1274 does not apply
because, for example, the interest rate exceeds the AFR (e.g., a bank
loan), the issue price of a debt instrument issued for property is its
stated redemption value at maturity. §§ 1273(b)(4); 1274(c)(1)(A).
 Reduce Stated Redemption Price for Imputed Interest. Section
1273(b)(4) must be applied by reducing the stated redemption price of
any instrument by the portion of the stated redemption price that is
treated as interest. § 108(e)(10)(B).
© 2009 Michael Best & Friedrich LLP
44
SPECIAL RULE FOR REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS
After the 1990-1992 recession, Congress enacted a special rule for
real estate developers under § 108(c).
 The election is voluntary and is useful where the debt was incurred or
assumed to acquire, construct, reconstruct or substantially improve real
property or, in certain cases, resulted from refinancing indebtedness
incurred or assumed before January 1, 1993. § 108(c)(3).
 One catch – the election only applies with regard to reducing basis of
depreciable real property. It does not apply to land or other nondepreciable real property.
 So if all the real estate person has is land held for development, then
the exception is not valuable.
© 2009 Michael Best & Friedrich LLP
45
FORGIVENESS OF DEBT FOR PRINCIPAL
RESIDENCES
In the 1990-1992 recession, certain taxpayers found that their house
was worth less than the debt against it. However, they couldn’t walk
away because they would have to pay tax on the COD. § 108(h).
 For tax years 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012, taxpayers will be eligible to
exclude from income COD arising solely from debt discharged if the
debt is directly related to a decline in the value of the taxpayer’s
principal residence or the financial condition of the taxpayer.
§108(a)(1)(E), (h)(3).
 The exclusion is generally limited to mortgages on principal residences
of $2 million or less.
 The amount excluded reduces the basis of the taxpayer’s principal
residence.
© 2009 Michael Best & Friedrich LLP
46
DEFERRAL AND RATABLE INCLUSION FROM
BUYING BACK DEBT
As part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act of 2009, a
new deferral rule was enacted allowing taxpayers for 2009 and 2010 to
elect to include the COD from reacquiring debt for less than its face
value over a five-year period beginning in 2014 and ending in 2018.
§108(i).
 The election to have the five-year deferral to 2014 to 2018 contains
rules for how to allocate debt for C corporations and for pass-through
entities and authorizes the IRS to promulgate legislative regulations
regarding the deferral.
 There are rules for acceleration of the deferral in the event of the death
of a taxpayer, liquidation of the taxpayer (including in bankruptcy) or
cessation of business by the taxpayer.
 Guidance on how to elect the deferral has been issued at Rev. Proc.
2009-37.
© 2009 Michael Best & Friedrich LLP
47
WHAT IF OBLIGOR IS A RELATIVE?
If the debtor is related to the lender as a family member, then the IRS
takes the position that cancellation of the debt is a gift. If the amount of
the gift exceeds the applicable gift threshold, then the gift can become
a taxable gift.
 If the gift is a taxable gift, and the debtor is insolvent, there is case law
authority that the amount of the gift is limited to the amount by which
the debtor becomes solvent.
© 2009 Michael Best & Friedrich LLP
48
PARTNERSHIP DEBT SHIFT
In a partnership, partners are treated as having tax basis equal to the
amount of debt allocated to the partner. IRC § 752.
 When partnership debt is forgiven, partners can find the debt that
previously supported a “negative capital” account decreases or is
shifted to other partners. This is treated as a distribution of cash.
§752(b).
 If the § 752(b) distribution exceeds the partner’s tax basis in the
partnership interest, taxable gain results.
© 2009 Michael Best & Friedrich LLP
49
WHO CARES ABOUT COD? HOW WILL THE IRS
KNOW?
In 1993, IRC § 6050P was enacted, which requires the filing of a Form
1099-C where there has been a discharge of debt of $600 or more by an
“applicable financial entity”. § 6050P(a) and (b). An “applicable financial
entity” means:
 Any bank or other financial institution described in §§ 581 or 591(a) and any
credit union. § 6050P(c)(2)(A).
 Federal agencies such as the FDIC, the RTC and the National Credit Union
Administration. § 6050P(c)(2)(B).
 Subsidiaries of banks and financial institutions if they are subject to federal
or state supervision and examination. § 6050P(c)(2)(C).
 Any “organization, a significant trade or business of which is the lending of
money.” § 6050P(c)(2)(D).
 This category of financial entities was intended to encompass financial companies
and credit card companies whether or not affiliated with banks or financial
institutions. Treas. Reg. § 1.6050P-2.
 Organizations selling non-financial goods or providing non-financial services
(such as a manufacturing or retail business) that extend credit to the
purchasers of those goods or services are not in a significant trade or
business of lending money. Treas. Reg. § 1.6050P-2(c).
© 2009 Michael Best & Friedrich LLP
50
WHAT TRIGGERS A FORM 1099-C?
A Form 1099-C is to be furnished to the person who receives a
discharge of more than $600 of COD income by January 31st of the
year following the discharge. § 6050P(d).
Under Treas. Reg. §1.6050P-1(b), the events triggering the Form
1099-C filing requirement is where a debt is discharged upon the
occurrence of an identifiable event indicating that the debt will not have
to be paid by the debtor. An identifiable event includes:
 A discharge of debt under the Federal bankruptcy laws. Treas. Reg.
§ 1.6050P-1(b)(2)(i)(A).
 An agreement between a financial institution and the debtor to
discharge a debt (including an agreement that results in an exchange
under § 1001) provided that the last event to effectuate the discharge
has occurred. Treas. Reg. § 1.6050P-1(b)(2)(i)(B).
 A cancellation or extinguishment by operation of law that renders the
debt unenforceable – such as the expiration of the statute of limitations
for collection of the indebtedness. Treas. Reg. § 1.6050P-1(b)(2)(i)(C).
© 2009 Michael Best & Friedrich LLP
51
WHAT TRIGGERS A FORM 1099-C? (cont.)
What is not an identifiable event is a bookkeeping entry (such as a
deduction for book or regulatory reporting purposes). While not in and
of itself an identifiable event, such an action can be an identifiable
event if it is a defined policy of a creditor. Treas. Reg. §§ 1.6050P1(b)(2)(i)(G) and -1(b)(2)(iii).
© 2009 Michael Best & Friedrich LLP
52
BRINGING IT ALL TOGETHER
The above principals are highlighted by an example.
Problem:
ABC Partnership has been in business a number of years but recently
suffered because of the economic downturn. Its primary asset is a
manufacturing plant where it brews world-class beer. Despite the
interest of consumers in drowning their sorrows, the beer is not selling.
The manufacturing facility has a tax basis of $1 million, a fair market
value of $2 million and is subject to debt of $4 million.
ABC has four equal general partners, Big Jim “Potbelly” Walker, Donald
“Big Hair” Developer, Water Street Brewers, LLC, and Noseeum, Inc.
© 2009 Michael Best & Friedrich LLP
53
 Big Jim “Potbelly” Walker is a successful and wealthy individual with a net
worth in excess of $50 million (i.e., he is “hopelessly solvent”).
 Donald “Big Hair” Developer is a real estate developer who finds himself
a bit over-extended as a result of the downturn in the real estate market.
He has personal liabilities for debts in excess of $50 million and his
projects are underwater by $15 million. Being a developer he is confident
things will turn around soon and he will be fine.
 Water Street Brewers, LLC is a family-limited liability corporation. Not
much is known about the profiles of the individual members but it is
believed that there are over 10 individual members all related to the
founder of the century-old brewery.
 Noseeum, Inc. is an S corporation that was carrying an active business of
a brewery, where the brewery business was contributed to ABC
Partnership. Noseeum now has its partnership interest in ABC
Partnership and about $200,000 of cash that it is ready to distribute to its
sole shareholder.
© 2009 Michael Best & Friedrich LLP
54
ABC Partnership asks you if you can represent ABC Partnership in
negotiating a workout with its creditors and/or a possible bankruptcy.
ABC Partnership is interested in avoiding undesirable tax
consequences for its partners.
© 2009 Michael Best & Friedrich LLP
55