Households could be sophisticated.  Tax regulation could be sophisticated.  Put these problems collectively and also you get in the present day’s lesson: household obligations to pay curiosity on a mortgage don’t assist the §163 deduction though they may, informally, be as binding as authorized obligations.

In Hrach Shilgevorkyan v. Commissioner, T. C. Memo. 2023-12 (Jan. 23, 2023) (Decide Ashford), the taxpayer paid half the curiosity due on a mortgage, however he was not the borrower.  The mortgage had been obtained by his brothers.  And whereas the advanced guidelines for §163 permit curiosity deductions in some circumstances when the payor just isn’t additionally the borrower, this taxpayer was unable to point out how the complexities of his specific household association match into the complexities of the statute.  Particulars beneath the fold.

Legislation:  Some Complexities of §163
Part 163 was easier.  Subsection (a) permits a deduction for “all curiosity paid or accrued throughout the taxable 12 months on indebtedness.” (emphasis provided).  Readers of a sure age will recall fondly that till 1986 that broad language included curiosity on private indebtedness, similar to bank card debt.

In 1986 Congress killed the enjoyment and made §163 extra sophisticated by including §163(h).  See Tax Reform Act of 1986, 100 Stat. 2085 at 2246.  Part 163(h)(1) now typically disallows deduction for any merchandise of “private curiosity.”  Nevertheless, §163(h)(2) provides complexity by excluding six forms of curiosity from the definition of “private curiosity.” The one related in the present day is “any certified residence curiosity (throughout the which means of paragraph (3).”

What constitutes certified residence curiosity has its personal complexity.  Part 163(h)(3) tells us that certified residential curiosity is available in two flavors: acquisition indebtedness and residential fairness indebtedness.  In the present day’s lesson includes the previous, so we don’t have to fret in regards to the latter, which has been suspended anyway till 2026 per §163(h)(3)(F).

Acquisition indebtedness arises from a mortgage that’s used to purchase, construct, or considerably enhance a certified residence of the taxpayer and the mortgage is secured by that very same residence.  §163(h)(3). The deduction permitted by the statute is capped by the dimensions of the qualifying indebtedness. For the tax years at situation in in the present day’s case, taxpayers might deduct curiosity on qualifying indebtedness of as much as $1m.  Curiosity attributable to mortgage balances exceeding $1m weren’t deductible.  Once more, we don’t want to fret in regards to the present cap of $750,000 on qualifying indebtedness or whether or not that goes away in 2026.

In order that’s the statute.  It’s advanced sufficient.  However life is sophisticated and each the Tax Courtroom and IRS have discovered it essential to complexify the mortgage curiosity deduction evaluation in at the least 3 ways related to in the present day’s lesson.

Complexity 1: Relationship of taxpayer to mortgage.
The primary complexity is figuring out whether or not the taxpayer searching for the deduction has a ample obligation to pay the mortgage.  This requires trying on the relationship between the taxpayer and the mortgage.  As a normal rule, the indebtedness have to be the duty of the taxpayer and never one other. See Golder v. Commissioner, 604 F.2nd 34 (ninth Cir.1979) (taxpayers’ standing as guarantors of mortgage acquired by their carefully held company was inadequate to assist §163 curiosity deduction, though they’d mortgaged their very own property to safe the warranty).

However the laws explicitly ponder that taxpayers who are usually not instantly answerable for the mortgage may nonetheless have an obligation that helps the mortgage curiosity deduction.  Treas. Reg. 1.163-1(b) has lengthy supplied that “Curiosity paid by the taxpayer on a mortgage upon actual property of which he’s the authorized or equitable proprietor, though the taxpayer just isn’t instantly liable upon the bond or notice secured by such mortgage, could also be deducted as curiosity on his indebtedness.”

The commonest scenario can be the only: the taxpayer is the borrower and the mortgage is recourse.  However it could get sophisticated.  The unique level of the regulation was to allow taxpayers who’re paying curiosity on a non-recourse mortgage to take a deduction.  See Golder, supra, at 35 (explaining historical past of the regulation).  Nevertheless, the Tax Courtroom has expanded on this to allow curiosity deductions when the taxpayer has a sufficiently enforceable settlement with the unique borrower to repay the mortgage.  See e.g. Amundson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1990-337 (discovering taxpayer’s settlement to make mortgage funds on mortgage obtained by sister in alternate for half-interest within the residence created “enforceable interest-bearing debt” to taxpayer’s sister).

This isn’t simple to determine as you possibly can see by the various circumstances the place the Tax Courtroom has denied the curiosity deduction for lack of a correct relationship between the taxpayer and the mortgage.  See e.g. Loria v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.1995–420 (mortgage taken out by a sibling of the taxpayer and casual settlement for taxpayer to pay mortgage was inadequate); Track v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.1995–446 (identical, though settlement for taxpayer to pay the sibling’s mortgage was put in writing).

Complexity 2: Taxpayer’s relationship to the property.
The second complexity arises as a result of the Tax Courtroom typically favors financial substance over authorized kinds.  What meaning is that it has expanded the attain of Treas. Reg. 1.162-1(b) to cowl conditions past non-recourse loans.  Specializing in the regulation’s “authorized or equitable proprietor” language, the Tax Courtroom has permitted taxpayers to take the mortgage curiosity deduction after they can present they have been the authorized or equitable proprietor of the property and have been making the curiosity funds with a view to protect their authorized relationship to the property.  Put one other method, if the taxpayer’s relationship to the property is robust sufficient, that may trump the truth that the taxpayer lacks the correct relationship to the mortgage.

As befits this substance-over-form strategy, the Tax Courtroom seems plenty of components to resolve (beneath related state regulation) whether or not the taxpayer as a ample authorized or equitable curiosity within the property to fall inside this expansive studying of the Treas. Reg.  The Courtroom will look to see whether or not the taxpayer (1) had the correct to own the property and to get pleasure from its use, rents, and earnings; (2) had the unilateral proper to enhance the property; (3) had the correct to acquire authorized title in conditions the place a vendor was holding title as safety; (4) bore the chance of lack of the property; (5) had the responsibility to take care of the property; (6) was answerable for insuring the property; and (7) was obligated to pay taxes, assessments, and costs in opposition to the property.  See Blanche v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-63.

Utilizing these components, the Tax Courtroom has generally held that taxpayers who don’t maintain authorized title to property nonetheless established they’d a ample rights within the property such that their mortgage funds have been essential to protect their rights, though the mortgage had been taken out by one other particular person.  See e.g. Njenge v. Commissioner, T.C. Summ. Op. 2008-84; Uslu v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-551.

Utilizing the identical components, the Tax Courtroom has additionally discovered that taxpayers didn’t set up equitable possession, see: Frankel v. Commissioner, T.C. Summ. Op. 2018-45; Adams v. Commissioner,  T.C. Memo. 2010-72. Nair v. Commissioner, T.C. Summ. Op. 2007-116. Daya v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-360 (2000).

Complexity 3: Taxpayers qualifying use of property. 
The primary two problems typically apply to all mortgage curiosity deductions, together with mortgages on enterprise property.  This third one, nevertheless, applies solely to house mortgages.

The statute permits deduction of house mortgage curiosity just for a “certified residence.” Every taxpayer can have as much as two certified residences.  The primary one is the taxpayer’s principal residence.  The second could be another residence the taxpayer designates as long as the taxpayer truly makes private use of it for the higher of 14 days or 10% of the times it’s rented out.  §163(h)(4)(A), x-ref. to §280A(d)(1).  However the taxpayer should particularly designate the residence.  That second residence just isn’t a difficulty in in the present day’s case.  In order that’s one complexity we are able to ignore.

What qualifies as a taxpayer’s principal residence could be advanced.  No shock there.  Treas. Reg. 1.163-10T(p)(2) says that “the time period “principal residence” means the taxpayer’s principal residence throughout the which means of part 1034.”  Nicely, gosh, that simply reveals you ways previous this Temp. Reg. is!  Congress nuked §1034 in 1997 when it created present guidelines for §121 house sale exclusion.  See Lesson From The Tax Courtroom: The Unexpected Circumstances Rule For §121 House Sale Exclusions, TaxProf Weblog (Ap. 25, 2022).  In order Decide Ashford tells us, the cross-reference is absolutely to the definition of “principal residence” for §121 functions.  Op. at 8.  And, as Treas. Reg. 1.121-2(b)(2) places it: “whether or not property is utilized by the taxpayer because the taxpayer’s principal residence relies upon upon all of the details and circumstances.” See e.g. Guinan v. U.S., No. CV 02-0261-PHX-PGR (D. Ariz. Apr. 9, 2003) (TPs who had owned and used three properties couldn’t set up that the one they offered was their principal residence).  Shut sufficient.

In the present day’s case illustrates all three of these complexities.  Let’s have a look.

Details
The tax 12 months at situation right here is 2012.  On his return for that 12 months Mr. Hrach Shilgevorkyan claimed a mortgage curiosity deduction for over $66,000 for curiosity he paid to Wells Fargo on a mortgage secured by a home in Paradise Valley, AZ.  The IRS disallowed the deduction and that’s the dispute in Tax Courtroom.

The details on this case are a bit tangled, very similar to the myriad relationships one generally finds in households.  Mainly it’s the story of three brothers: Artur, Edvard, and Hrach.  The three brothers have been strongly entrepreneurial, working “plenty of auto outlets, a jewellery retailer, and a restaurant” via varied enterprise entities. Op. at 2.  However they weren’t strongly tax compliant.  An undescribed check-cashing scheme resulted in prison tax penalties in opposition to Edvard and civil tax fraud penalties in opposition to Hrach.  Id.

The brothers have been additionally concerned within the buy and building of a 5,300 sq. ft. house and related 1,700 visitor home in Paradise Valley, AZ within the mid-2000’s.  Whether or not this was a private buy or a enterprise transfer is unclear.  The property was bought in 2005 by Edvard and his spouse Lusine.  The opinion doesn’t say when the home and visitor home have been accomplished however I infer it was 2008.  In 2010, Edvard put the property in the marketplace.  It didn’t promote.  He tried once more in 2013.  The opinion is silent on the outcomes of that effort.

The mortgage paperwork recommend that the lender was additionally unclear in regards to the objective of the acquisition.  Was it to construct a house to reside in or to flip?  The primary mortgage was to purchase the land, obtained by Edvard and Lusine.  Then Artur joined them in securing a second mortgage to construct the buildings. Whereas Artur was a cosigner, he by no means truly made any funds. Op. at 8. By 2008, the three debtors had consolidated and re-financed the loans right into a single $2m mortgage from Wells Fargo Financial institution.  The mortgage paperwork required that the debtors “occupy, set up, and use” the property as their principal residence inside 60 days after the refinancing and would stay their principal residence for at the least one 12 months until Wells Fargo agreed to launch them or until there have been extenuating circumstances that compelled them out.  Op. at 3.  So that implies that the buildings weren’t accomplished by 2008.  Readers of a sure age may recall the financial scenario that 12 months.  Youthful readers can Google “Nice Recession.” 

Hrach, the taxpayer in in the present day’s case, was not listed as an obligor on the Wells Fargo mortgage.  In actual fact, the mortgage paperwork supplied that if any of the three debtors (Edvard, Lusine, and Artur bear in mind) transferred their curiosity within the property, it will set off a default and Wells Fargo might require fast cost of the complete mortgage stability from the three debtors.  Op. at 3.

Nicely … Artur by no means lived on the Paradise Valley property in any respect!  In 2010 (the identical 12 months Edvard put the property up on the market for the primary time), Artur executed a quitclaim deed in favor of Hrach.  Nobody advised the Financial institution.  In 2010 Hrach appears to have began dwelling within the visitor home at the least half time.  However he additionally maintained a residence in Mountain Park Condominiums, the place he and his brothers owned and rented out items.  Op. at 4. And he didn’t listing the Paradise Valley property as an asset in a house mortgage utility he made in February 2013.  As an alternative on that utility he represented that he was a renter at that property.  Hrach bought the 2013 mortgage and used it to purchase a home.  He moved there in 2013.

Throughout 2012 Hrach paid his brother Edvard an quantity equal to half of the mortgage funds for that 12 months.  Wells Fargo issued a Kind 1098 to Edvard and Lusine.  Hrach claimed a deduction for some $66,000, representing half of the curiosity reported on that 1098.

In Tax Courtroom Hrach argued that he needs to be allowed to deduct the $66k as a result of a aspect settlement he had with Edvard made it an enforceable obligation.  He had the correct relationship with the mortgage to justify the deduction.  Alternatively, Hrach argued that he had the correct relationship with the property.  Invoking Treas. Reg. 1.163-1(b), he argued that he was a half-owner of the property and so his funds have been vital to guard his authorized curiosity.  Decide Ashford rejected each arguments after which threw in a 3rd motive for disallowing the deduction: the Paradise Valley visitor home was not his principal residence.  Let’s check out every lesson.

Lesson 1: Household Obligation Is Not Ample Authorized Obligation To Assist Deduction
 Hrach and Edvard each testified that they’d a handshake settlement that if Hrach would pay half the mortgage, Edvard would break up the earnings from the sale of the Paradise Valley property with him.  It seems they have been making an attempt to suit their circumstances beneath Amundson, supra.

Decide Ashford didn’t imagine them, writing “We’d like not settle for a taxpayer’s self-serving testimony when the taxpayer fails to current credible, corroborative, documentary proof.”  Op. at 7.  Right here, Hrach had no different proof of the brothers’ settlement, a lot much less proof that it was enforceable outdoors of the household.  Heck, Hrach didn’t even have proof of his funds! He made no funds on to Wells Fargo.  All of the funds to Wells Fargo got here from Edvard and Lusine.  As an alternative, the story was that Hrach paid half of these quantities on to Edvard however Hrach apparently was unable to even introduce proof of that.  Id.

Lesson 2: Quitclaim Deed Can not Create One thing Out of Nothing
Recall that even when the taxpayer just isn’t primarily answerable for the mortgage, Treas. Reg. 1.163-1(b) permits taxpayers who’ve a ample authorized or equitable curiosity within the property to deduct curiosity funds.  Figuring out whether or not a taxpayer has a ample authorized or equitable curiosity within the property to fulfill the requirement of requires a details and circumstances examination of the taxpayer’s relationship with the property, utilizing state regulation. 

Hrach tried to argue he was a half-owner of the Paradise Valley property as a result of Artur had executed a Quitclaim deed in his favor.  Nevertheless, the related state regulation, Arizona, supplied that Artur by no means had an possession curiosity within the property.  He was merely a co-debtor.  Writes Decide Ashford: “Below Arizona regulation, Artur was an lodging celebration and had no possession curiosity within the property.”  Op. at 8. Subsequently, Hrach couldn’t use the quitclaim deed to determine authorized possession as a result of a “quitclaim deed can not convey higher rights to property than people who the grantor possessed.”  Id.

So Hrach had no authorized curiosity.  What about equitable curiosity?  It doesn’t seem Hrach even tried.  Decide Ashford writes that Hrach “didn’t present credible proof that he paid bills related to the property or that he bore any advantages or burdens of the property.” Id.  On the contrary, his declare of possession earlier than the Tax Courtroom was instantly contradicted by contemporaneous paperwork. Hrach had put in his February 2013 mortgage utility that he rented the visitor home and he didn’t listing the Paradise Valley property as an asset.

Lesson 3:  Ya Gotta Have A Certified Residence
Lastly, Decide Ashford notes that even when Hrach had been in a position to truly present he made mortgage curiosity funds, and had accomplished so to guard a authorized or equitable possession curiosity,  he nonetheless wouldn’t be entitled to a §163 deduction as a result of he couldn’t present that the Paradise Valley visitor home was his major residence in 2012.  Hrach “had his mail despatched to a number of addresses,” and was unable to even present how a lot time throughout 2012 he spent on the Paradise Valley residence as an alternative of the Mountain Park Condos.  Op. at 9. In distinction to Paradise Valley, the electrical utilities at Mountain Park have been beneath his identify and Hrach paid these payments by private checks.  Decide Ashford notes that on none of these checks, nor any financial institution assertion, did Hrach even listing the Paradise Valley deal with as his residence.

In sum, “petitioner has not met his burden of proving that the Paradise Valley property was his certified residence for 2012.”  Op. at 9.

Backside line:  Sure, taxpayers who pay curiosity on a house mortgage can generally be entitled to the §162 curiosity deduction even when they aren’t the borrower (if the house is their certified residence).  However one should all the time watch out to suit the complexities of every taxpayer’s scenario with the complexities of the regulation.

Bryan Camp is the George H. Mahon Professor of Legislation at Texas Tech College Faculty of Legislation.  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 Courtroom.

https://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2023/02/lesson-from-the-tax-court-mortgage-interest-deductions-when-payor-is-not-the-borrower.html