{"title":"Recourse and Nonrecourse Debt: What Are the Federal Income Tax Consequences When the Character of Debt Changes","authors":"Kenneth C. Weil","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3660637","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract \n \nWhen encumbered property is sold, the taxation of that sale is different if \nthe sale involves recourse debt as opposed to nonrecourse debt. This difference \nraises an intriguing question: when debt changes from recourse to nonrecourse, \nor vice versa, which rules will control? Examples of when debt \nchanges from recourse to nonrecourse, or vice versa, include bankruptcy discharges, \nnonjudicial foreclosures in some states with deficiency statutes, some \nshort sales in deficiency states, and the operation of section 1111(b) of the \nBankruptcy Code. \n \nThe Cottage Savings regulations, Regulation section 1.1001-3, have specific \nprovisions designed to address what happens when debt changes from \nrecourse to nonrecourse, or vice versa. These regulations are sometimes helpful \nto creditors (e.g. , elections under section 1111(b)(2) of the Bankruptcy \nCode). Sometimes, they appear punitive to debtors (e.g. , the mandatory conversion \nof recourse debt into nonrecourse debt in Chapter 11). And, sometimes, \nthey do not provide an answer (e.g. , short sales and nonjudicial foreclosures \nin deficiency states). \n \nThe Author believes that when recourse debt is converted to nonrecourse \ndebt by operation of a discharge in bankruptcy, there should be a discharge \nof indebtedness event, and thereafter, the nonrecourse rules would apply, albeit \nwith the nonrecourse debt reduced by the amount of the debt discharged. \nAs a result, after discharge, the nonrecourse debt would be reduced to the fair \nmarket value of the collateral. Upon a subsequent sale, the amount realized \nby the debtor would be the fair market value of the property (or the new taxvalue \nof the debt if the property declines in value). The current rule, with the \namount realized equaling the old face value of the debt, would no longer apply. \nThis change would put an end to the punitive gains resulting from the \ncurrent nonrecourse-sale rules. Unfortunately, this proposal is probably not \nadministratively feasible.","PeriodicalId":225629,"journal":{"name":"Tax Law: Practitioner Series eJournal","volume":"10 1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Tax Law: Practitioner Series eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3660637","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Abstract
When encumbered property is sold, the taxation of that sale is different if
the sale involves recourse debt as opposed to nonrecourse debt. This difference
raises an intriguing question: when debt changes from recourse to nonrecourse,
or vice versa, which rules will control? Examples of when debt
changes from recourse to nonrecourse, or vice versa, include bankruptcy discharges,
nonjudicial foreclosures in some states with deficiency statutes, some
short sales in deficiency states, and the operation of section 1111(b) of the
Bankruptcy Code.
The Cottage Savings regulations, Regulation section 1.1001-3, have specific
provisions designed to address what happens when debt changes from
recourse to nonrecourse, or vice versa. These regulations are sometimes helpful
to creditors (e.g. , elections under section 1111(b)(2) of the Bankruptcy
Code). Sometimes, they appear punitive to debtors (e.g. , the mandatory conversion
of recourse debt into nonrecourse debt in Chapter 11). And, sometimes,
they do not provide an answer (e.g. , short sales and nonjudicial foreclosures
in deficiency states).
The Author believes that when recourse debt is converted to nonrecourse
debt by operation of a discharge in bankruptcy, there should be a discharge
of indebtedness event, and thereafter, the nonrecourse rules would apply, albeit
with the nonrecourse debt reduced by the amount of the debt discharged.
As a result, after discharge, the nonrecourse debt would be reduced to the fair
market value of the collateral. Upon a subsequent sale, the amount realized
by the debtor would be the fair market value of the property (or the new taxvalue
of the debt if the property declines in value). The current rule, with the
amount realized equaling the old face value of the debt, would no longer apply.
This change would put an end to the punitive gains resulting from the
current nonrecourse-sale rules. Unfortunately, this proposal is probably not
administratively feasible.