Parker v. Delaney
40 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 89, 186 F.2d 455, 1950 U.S. App. LEXIS 3907 (1950)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A taxpayer realizes a taxable gain upon the disposition of property encumbered by a nonrecourse mortgage, and the amount realized includes the full outstanding balance of the mortgage debt, even if the property is transferred to the mortgagee for no cash consideration.
Facts:
- Between 1933 and 1936, a taxpayer arranged to manage four apartment properties that banks had acquired through foreclosure.
- The properties were deeded to a 'straw man' acting for the taxpayer, who was not personally liable on the first mortgages given to the banks.
- The taxpayer received unrecorded deeds to the properties and operated them as the effective owner.
- For several years, the taxpayer reported all income from the properties and took tax deductions for depreciation, calculating the property's cost basis as the full amount of the nonrecourse first mortgages.
- By 1945, the mortgages were in default.
- The taxpayer, through his straw man, executed quitclaim deeds, transferring the properties back to the banks in exchange for the discharge of the mortgages.
- The taxpayer did not receive any cash or other property in the transaction.
Procedural Posture:
- The taxpayer paid federal income tax for 1945, reporting a long-term capital gain on the disposition of several properties.
- Subsequently, the taxpayer filed an application with the Collector of Internal Revenue for a refund of the tax paid.
- After six months elapsed without action on the application, the taxpayer sued the Collector in U.S. District Court (the court of first instance) to recover the payment.
- The District Court entered a judgment in favor of the Collector.
- The taxpayer, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a taxpayer realize a taxable gain under § 111 of the Internal Revenue Code when they dispose of a property by transferring it to the mortgagee, where the outstanding balance of a nonrecourse mortgage exceeds the property's adjusted basis, even though the taxpayer receives no cash and is not personally liable for the debt?
Opinions:
Majority - Fahy, Circuit Judge
Yes, a taxpayer realizes a taxable gain in this situation. The court reasoned that the transfer of the properties to the banks was a 'disposition' under § 111. Extending the Supreme Court's holding in Crane v. Commissioner, the court found 'no logical or practical distinction' between a sale to a third party and a voluntary conveyance to the mortgagee. The 'amount realized' from the disposition includes the full amount of the unassumed mortgage because the taxpayer's property was relieved of the lien, which constitutes a benefit. Because the taxpayer had included the mortgage in his cost basis to take depreciation deductions, tax symmetry requires including the outstanding mortgage in the amount realized upon disposition. The court also noted that absent evidence from the taxpayer that the property's value was less than the mortgage, it is assumed to be at least equal to the mortgage amount.
Concurring - Magruder, Chief Judge
Yes, a taxable gain was realized. While the result is inescapable under the precedent of Crane v. Commissioner, the underlying logic of Crane is strained. It is a 'somewhat esoteric interpretation' of the tax code to conclude that a taxpayer 'realized' the amount of a mortgage for which he had no personal liability and received no cash upon disposition. A less strained computation could reach the same result: by taking so many depreciation deductions ($45,280.48) against a minimal actual investment ($13,989.38), the taxpayer's adjusted basis became negative (-$31,291.10). When this negative basis is subtracted from the amount realized (zero), the result is a positive taxable gain of $31,291.10.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies and extends the doctrine from Crane v. Commissioner, confirming that the inclusion of nonrecourse debt in the amount realized applies to foreclosures and voluntary conveyances to the mortgagee, not just to third-party sales. It clarifies the issue raised in Crane's famous footnote 37 by placing the burden on the taxpayer to prove the property's fair market value is less than the mortgage debt to potentially escape the rule. The ruling reinforces the critical principle of tax symmetry: if a taxpayer receives the benefit of including nonrecourse debt in their basis for depreciation, they must also account for the relief of that debt as part of the amount realized upon the property's disposition.
