As inflation rises so does curiosity in curiosity.  Actually when my 1-year CD matures subsequent month I will probably be searching for a price higher than the two% price that appeared so nice final yr!  If I get a 4.5% I will probably be completely happy … however who is aware of what my {dollars} will probably be value subsequent yr?

And that’s how we sometimes consider curiosity: it’s all about inflation, the outdated concept that “{dollars} tomorrow will probably be value lower than {dollars} in the present day.”  However the idea of “curiosity” is a little more nuanced than simply being compensation for the diminished worth of {dollars} sooner or later.  It’s also a compensation for threat: the danger that the cash won’t actually be repaid—assume junk bonds.  And curiosity additionally compensates for alternative prices: a lender is giving up the flexibility to make use of (eat or make investments) that cash now.  Briefly, curiosity is compensation for a number of penalties of the use or forbearance of cash, just like how hire is compensation for a number of completely different sticks of property rights given up by the lessor.

It’s for these causes that curiosity has all the time been taxed as a separate merchandise of earnings, separate and aside from the underlying mortgage or deferred fee.  We see that lesson once more in the present day in Susan D. Rodgers v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2023-56 (Could 9, 2023) (Decide Gale), the place the taxpayer acquired periodic funds from the State of Alabama in 2015 that it had collected from her ex-spouse to fulfill a court docket judgment for baby help arrearages, plus curiosity.  She handled all the funds as excludable baby help regardless of receiving a 1099-INT from Alabama that handled all the funds as curiosity on the arrearages.

Thus this case additionally presents a lesson in allocation.  How ought to a taxpayer resolve how a lot of a given fee represents taxable curiosity or non-taxable baby help?  And on that subject, expensive readers, I believe the Tax Court docket might have been misled by the State of Alabama into ignoring federal regulation to search out that all of every fee was curiosity.  Particulars beneath the fold.

Courts have lengthy emphasised that curiosity is certainly an “merchandise” of earnings separate and aside from the fee it pertains to.  In Kieselbach v. Commissioner, 317 U.S. 399 (1943), the taxpayers’ property was taken by New York Metropolis in 1933, however compensation for the taking was not paid till 1937.  The fee included each the worth of the property on the time of taking (agreed to be $58,000) plus a further quantity (agreed to be $15,000) which town ordinances required.  The Court docket defined that the extra fee was “along with the worth of the property mounted as of the time of the taking, to supply, when really paid, the total equal of that worth.”

The taxpayers argued that the complete sum of $73,000 was the compensation for the taking; it was the quantity realized for calculating achieve.  The extra quantity of $15,000 merely mirrored time worth of cash.  Accordingly the complete quantity realized above their foundation of $48,000 was long run capital achieve.  The federal government argued that solely the $58,000 was quantity realized.  The curiosity half ought to be reported as unusual earnings as a result of curiosity is greater than compensation for misplaced worth of {dollars}.  Curiosity is a separate earnings merchandise.

The Supreme Court docket agreed with the federal government.  “The sum paid these taxpayers above the award of $58,000 was paid due to the failure to place the award within the taxpayers’ arms on the day, January 3, 1933, when the property was taken. *** Whether or not one calls it curiosity on the worth or funds to fulfill the constitutional requirement of simply compensation…is immaterial. It’s…paid to the taxpayers in lieu of what they could have earned on the sum discovered to be the worth of the property on the day the property was taken.”  Id. at 403.  In different phrases, the fee was not merely an adjustment for the time worth of cash; you see within the final a part of the quote the concept that it was additionally compensation for the chance the taxpayers misplaced to make use of or reinvest the fee on the day the property was taken.

In order that was a case about what was an quantity realized.  However courts haven’t any hassle extending that reasoning to inclusion/exclusion points.  For instance, in Wheeler v. Commissioner, 58 T.C. 459 (1972), the taxpayer sued for breach of contract and obtained a $30,000 judgment, which additionally ordered fee of $18,000 in curiosity.  The taxpayer argued the complete restoration was excluded as a return of his capital funding.  Then, as now, harm recoveries which represented however a return of capital weren’t thought-about taxable earnings.  Right here, nonetheless, the Tax Court docket held that solely the $30,000 was awarded as compensation for breach of contract.  Solely that quantity might probably qualify for the return-of-capital therapy.  The rest of the judgment, designated as curiosity, was to compensate the taxpayer for the delay in receiving fee of the damages he suffered.  That extra quantity needed to be included in gross earnings.  Id. at 462.

Equally, in Kovacs v. Commissioner, 100 T.C. 124 (1993), aff’d, 25 F.3d 1048 (sixth Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 963 (1994), the taxpayer had gained a wrongful demise judgment towards a railroad.  The railroad paid off after dropping its appeals.  The ultimate examine included each the $995,000 wrongful demise award plus some $1.2 million of statutorily mandated post-judgment curiosity.

The Tax Court docket agreed that the wrongful demise award was correctly excluded beneath §104(a)(2) however held that the curiosity was a separate merchandise of earnings.  For these , the opinion provides a superb overview of the doctrinal historical past of why curiosity is handled individually from the underlying judgments, and in addition explains why it could not deal with the fee as a structured settlement beneath Rev. Rul. 79-313.

Immediately’s lesson includes the exclusion for baby help funds in a divorce that occurred earlier than December 31, 2018.  So let’s take a fast have a look at the divorce taxation fundamentals for such taxpayers.

Normal Tax Guidelines For Divorces Earlier than 2019
For divorces earlier than December 31, 2018, federal tax regulation handled funds between ex-spouses as falling into considered one of three mutually unique buckets: (1) the alimony bucket; (2) the kid help bucket; (3) the property settlement bucket.  I used to show the topic that manner as a result of, for these divorces, now-repealed §215 permitted taxpayers to deduct alimony, however not baby help, and now-repealed §71 required the ex-spouse to report alimony as gross earnings, however not baby help.

So the label was essential.  Divorcing {couples} would typically attempt to disguise baby help funds as alimony in order that the payor partner might deduct the funds.  To deal with that, Treasury issued rules that tried to elucidate what would rely as baby help funds and what wouldn’t.

The massive thought within the rules was to differentiate baby help funds from alimony funds.  The rules don’t try to differentiate baby help funds from different forms of funds, comparable to curiosity.  Little one help funds have been people who have been “mounted as payable for the help of a kid of the payor partner.”  Treas. Reg. 1.71-1T(c), Q&A 15.  The rules went on to elucidate that fee obligations nonetheless labeled can be handled as baby help “if the fee is decreased (a) on the occurring of a contingency regarding a toddler of the payor, or (b) at a time which may clearly be related to such a contingency.”  Id. Q&A 16.

Below the previous taxing scheme, when a payor partner fell behind on baby help and the payee partner obtained a judgment ordering funds of the arrearages, payee spouses tried to argue that court-ordered curiosity funds ought to be counted as baby help funds as effectively.  The argument was that the curiosity constituted half and parcel of the unpaid baby help funds due to time worth of cash principals.  They have been simply receiving the kid help funds with inflated {dollars}.

Courts rejected that argument.  Curiosity is a separate merchandise of earnings.  For instance, in Fankhanel v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.1998–403, 76 T.C.M. 809 (1998), aff’d, 205 F.3d 1333 (4th Cir. 2000), the taxpayer had obtained a number of judgments over time towards her ex-spouse to pay baby help, plus curiosity.  Importantly, it seems she additionally seems to have been totally paid beneath these judgments.  She argued that the complete quantities ought to be considered as baby help.  The court docket disagreed.  It regarded on the thought of “mounted” to search out that “Petitioner has didn’t show that the topic funds have been mounted funds made beneath a divorce or separation settlement. On the contrary, the funds seem to have been made as court-ordered funds of curiosity. Curiosity is includable in gross earnings.”  Id. at p. 815.

Let’s see how all this performs out in in the present day’s Lesson

Information
Ms. Rodgers divorced her ex-spouse someday earlier than 2011.  However in 2011 they trooped into Alabama state court docket over a disagreement on whether or not the ex-spouse was required to proceed baby help.  The state court docket agreed the ex-spouse ought to not be required to pay baby help, but additionally discovered the ex-spouse was in arrears “within the sum of $18,000.”  Op. at 3.  That was in September 2011.

Properly, apparently ex-spouse didn’t like spherical numbers and satisfied the state court docket to amend its order to be extra exact.  Within the extra exact amended order, the court docket discovered the ex-spouse “in arrears within the sum of $5,361.89 excluding curiosity ….”  After which the state court docket then discovered the curiosity owed to be $10,682.48.  That totals to roughly $16,000.  Being choosy saved ex-spouse nearly $2,000.  That was in April 2012.

Not that ex-spouse was, really, paying something.  Nope.  So the nice state of Alabama began amassing from the ex-spouse, sending the quantities collected in sporadic funds to Ms. Rodgers.  Decide Gale explains that Alabama’s inner data accounted for its collections as arrearages-first, interest-last.  Op. at 3. Thus, it didn’t ship Ms. Rodgers a Kind 1099-INT for the primary $5,361.89 it grabbed from the ex-spouse.  Nonetheless, by 2015 the state’s inner data mirrored it had completed amassing the arrearages.  So it determined it was now amassing the curiosity.  Thus, it despatched her a 1099-INT for the $7,859.27 it collected and paid over to her in 2015.

As a result of Ms. Rodgers had not reported the funds she acquired in 2012, 2013, and 2014, she apparently noticed no cause to report them in 2015 both, regardless of receiving a 1099-INT.  In any case, in her thoughts it was all baby help and, as we all know, baby help funds are usually not reportable as gross earnings.

The IRS audited and dinged her for unreported earnings.  She petitioned the Tax Court docket, pro-se.

Lesson: Little one Help Is Excluded However Curiosity On Arrearages Is Not
Ms. Rodgers didn’t seem to advance any argument aside from she had not acquired any Kind 1099-INT in prior years and didn’t perceive why what appeared to her the identical funds she had acquired in prior years ought to all of a sudden turn out to be taxable.

Implied in her argument is an allocation subject.  As Decide Gale places it: “The right characterization of a fee (or a portion thereof) as alimony, baby help, or curiosity for federal tax functions is ruled by federal regulation.” Op. at 5 (emphasis provided).  Decide Gale says that the correct characterization relies on (1) the taxpayer’s admission, or not, of receiving the funds; (2) the state’s fee data; (3) the existence of a state court docket order splitting up funds into buckets of arrearages and curiosity.

Right here, it was essential to Decide Gale that the state court docket amended its first order to exactly (all the way down to the penny!) cut up up the fee obligation to $5,361.89 or arrearages and $10,682.48 of curiosity.  Much more essential to Decide Gale was that Alabama’s state data accounted for funds on an arrearage-first foundation.  By 2015 the state had collected and paid over to Ms. Rodgers greater than $5,361.89.  That meant that 100% of the funds in 2015 have been for curiosity.

So 100% of the 2015 funds have been curiosity.  And curiosity is a separate earnings merchandise.

Remark: What About Allocation?
To me this case presents a garden-variety allocation drawback.  Ms. Rodgers acquired a stream of funds from the state because it, sporadically, was capable of seize cash from her ex-spouse.  It was grabbing the cash to pay each the arrearages (non-taxable) and the curiosity ordered by the court docket (taxable).

We see again and again in federal tax regulation the issue of how one can characterize a stream of funds when a part of the funds would possibly characterize non-taxable quantities and different components of the funds characterize taxable quantities.  Often the difficulty arises once we are attempting to determine how a lot of a recurring fee represents a return of foundation (not taxable) vs. a return of funding earnings or curiosity (taxable).

When contemplating the tax therapy of a stream of funds which characterize a mixture of non-taxable and taxable quantities, there are mainly three allocation selections:  (1) deal with funds as 100% allocable to the non-taxable quantities first, then deal with funds as 100% restoration of taxable quantities; (2) flip it and deal with the primary funds as 100% taxable till that’s all acquired, and solely then deal with the remaining funds as 100% non-taxable; (3) pro-rate every fee between that which is taxable and that which isn’t.

I believe federal tax regulation is fairly darned constant in going with allocation methodology #3, pro-ration. I’m pondering right here of the §72(b) guidelines for annuities.  I’m additionally pondering of the §101(d) guidelines for periodic funds of demise advantages to life insurance coverage beneficiaries.  You can too see this therapy within the §453 guidelines for installment agreements.

That is how I see federal regulation normally treating the allocation subject.  It’s true that each one of those statutory examples cope with allocating foundation and revenue.  However I’m unsure I see why that will be essential in deciding what portion of a fee ought to be allotted to an excludable quantity and what portion ought to be allotted to an includable quantity.

I thus discover it greater than considerably ironic that whereas Decide Gale correctly acknowledges that the allocation subject is to be ruled by federal regulation, he then goes proper forward and depends totally on the state’s inner accounting data to say that 100% of the 2015 funds have been curiosity.  Heck, that’s not even state regulation as far as we all know.  And it’s very removed from federal regulation.  Certain, Decide Gale recites the amended state court docket order splitting the duty into arrearage and curiosity.  Certain, he explains that Ms. Rodgers admitted to receiving the funds in 2015.  However neither of these go to the query of allocation.  Solely the state data give any such indication.  I confess I don’t see why inner state court docket accounting system ought to management the federal earnings tax query.  I believe the Court docket simply obtained misled by the state data.

What do readers assume?  Isn’t there an argument right here that the correct allocation was to deal with about 1/3 of  every fee acquired in 2015 as a return of arrearages (excludable) and the remaining as curiosity (includable)?  Or am I lacking one thing?  Sure, that implies that Ms. Rodgers might have tousled her 2013 and 2014 returns, however that may be a no-never-mind sine the yr earlier than the Court docket was the correct tax legal responsibility for 2015.

Backside Line: Whereas curiosity is all the time a separate earnings merchandise, readers can be clever to always remember the potential allocation points when you have got interval funds which can be a mixture of an excludable quantity and includable curiosity.

[Editor’s Note:  If you would like to receive a daily email with links to each Lesson From The Tax Court and other tax posts on TaxProf Blog, email here.]

Bryan Camp is the George H. Mahon Professor of Regulation at Texas Tech College College of Regulation.  He invitations readers to return every Monday (or Tuesday if Monday is a federal vacation) to TaxProf Weblog for an additional Lesson From The Tax Court docket.

https://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2023/05/lesson-from-the-tax-court-allocating-between-excludable-child-support-and-includable-interest.html