Koshland v. Commissioner

19 T.C. 860, 1953 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 238
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedFebruary 17, 1953
DocketDocket Nos. 38668, 39877
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 19 T.C. 860 (Koshland v. Commissioner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Tax Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Koshland v. Commissioner, 19 T.C. 860, 1953 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 238 (tax 1953).

Opinion

OPINION.

Harron, Judge:

The question to be decided is whether interest in the amount of $16,500 is attributable to property held for the production of rents within the meaning and intent of section 22 (n) (4) .1

Upon the evidence, it has been found as a fact that the notes upon which the interest in question has been paid were unsecured purchase money notes. It is concluded, therefore, that the interest represents a deduction attributable to property held for the production of income under section 22 (n) (4). It is immaterial that the notes were not secured by a mortgage on the property. Cf. Wharton v. United States, (N. D., Alabama, June 5, 1952) an unreported, case. AJso, it is immaterial that the petitioner with the consent of the lenders has elected to let the indebtedness on the notes continue uncurtailed for a long time.

Our attention has not been directed to any accounting practice or rule which would treat the interest in question in any way other than a general expense of carrying the rental property, the interests in the property having been acquired with the proceeds of the loans evidenced by the notes, just as the property taxes on the rental property are treated as a direct expense of carrying the property, a point not in dispute which the petitioner apparently concedes. Since the notes on which the interest is paid were in fact purchase money notes, it is proper accounting practice according to our understanding to treat the interest on the notes as an expense of the rental property. Accordingly the interest squarely comes within the scope of section 22 (n) (4).

Consideration has been given to the report of the Senate Committee on Finance which accompanied the Individual Income Tax Act of 1944, and which contains a lengthy explanation of the purposes of the new provisions which were enacted as section 22 (n) of the Code. For convenience, the pertinent parts of the committee report are set forth in the margin.2 See, also, Supplement to Regulations 111, p. 43, section 29.22 (n)-1.

The explanation in the report of the Senate Finance Committee (footnote 2), of the purpose of subsection (4) is that “gross income derived from rents and royalties is reduced by the deductions attributable thereto (as defined in clause (4)) in order that the resulting adjusted gross income will be on a parity with the income from interest and dividends in respect of which latter items no deductions are permitted in computing adjusted income.” Also, it is stated in the committee report that the term “attributable” “shall be taken in its restricted sense; only such deductions as are, in the accounting sense, deemed to be expenses directly incurred * * * in the rental of property * * *.” All of the explanation in the committee report of the meaning and purposes of section 22 (n) and, in particular, of its subsections, as we read and understand the explanation, leads to the conclusion, under the facts of these proceedings, that the interest in question is “attributable” to the rental property purchased with the loans, within the “restricted sense” of the term “attributable.”

The respondent’s determination that the interest in question comes within subsection (4) of section 22 (n) is sustained. It follows that the amount of petitioner’s adjusted gross income in each taxable year has been determined correctly, and that the amounts of the allowable deductions for 1948 and 1949 under section 23 (o) for charitable contributions have been correctly determined.

Reviewed by the Court.

Decisions will be entered for the respondent.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Koufos v. Indiana Department of State Revenue
646 N.E.2d 733 (Indiana Tax Court, 1995)
Goddard v. Commissioner
1962 T.C. Memo. 83 (U.S. Tax Court, 1962)
Koshland v. Commissioner
216 F.2d 751 (Ninth Circuit, 1954)
Koshland v. Commissioner
19 T.C. 860 (U.S. Tax Court, 1953)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
19 T.C. 860, 1953 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 238, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/koshland-v-commissioner-tax-1953.