T.C. Summary Opinion 2004-143
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
SIOANA U. AND S. MOLI NGATUVAI, Petitioners v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 10820-03S. Filed October 18, 2004.
Sioana U. and S. Moli Ngatuvai, pro se.
Mark Howard, for respondent.
PANUTHOS, Chief Special Trial Judge: This case was heard
pursuant to the provisions of section 7463 of the Internal
Revenue Code in effect at the time the petition was filed. The
decision to be entered is not reviewable by any other court, and
this opinion should not be cited as authority. Unless otherwise
indicated, subsequent section references are to the Internal
Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue, and all Rule
references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
- 2 -
Respondent determined that petitioners are liable for a
deficiency in Federal income tax of $5,185 and an accuracy-
related penalty under section 6662 of $1,037 for the 2001 taxable
year. After concessions,1 the issue for decision is whether
petitioners’ gross income for 2001 includes $30,714, the portion
of a loan discharged by the United States Department of
Agriculture during that taxable year.
Background
Some of the facts have been stipulated, and they are so
found. An oral stipulation of facts and the exhibits are
incorporated herein by this reference. At the time of filing of
their petition, petitioners resided in Provo, Utah.
In 1991, petitioners received a $50,000 loan from the United
States Department of Agriculture (USDA). At the time,
petitioners were farmers in Hawaii who leased 20 acres of land
for a farming operation. The loan, which was secured by the
farm,2 was to be used to make lease payments. It is unclear from
the record whether the lease payments were ever made.
1
Respondent concedes that petitioners are not liable for
the accuracy-related penalty under sec. 6662 of $1,037 for the
2001 taxable year. Petitioners concede that they are not
entitled to an IRA deduction of $300 for the 2001 taxable year.
2
Petitioners assert that they owned the farm that was used
to secure the loan by the USDA. The circumstances surrounding
the ownership of this farm are unclear.
- 3 -
In 1992, petitioners discontinued the farming operation and
moved to Utah. Petitioners did not make any payments on the
loan. On February 13, 1997, petitioners brought suit against the
USDA and other parties, claiming civil rights violations. On
August 19, 1997, the United States District Court for the Central
District of Utah dismissed petitioners’ case against the USDA.
On October 4, 1999, the USDA brought a foreclosure action
against petitioners. Petitioners’ farm was sold at a public
auction during February 2001, and the sale proceeds were applied
against the outstanding balance of the loan from the USDA. The
proceeds nevertheless were insufficient to extinguish the loan.
During the 2001 taxable year, the USDA issued Forms 1099-C,
Cancellation of Debt, regarding the remaining balance of the
loan. Petitioners did not receive the Forms 1099-C.
Petitioners own a home that they purchased in 1995 with a
$43,000 mortgage and that they estimate to be worth $60,000
during the 2001 taxable year. Petitioners also own a truck which
they purchased for $300; respondent concedes that this truck had
negligible value in 2001. During the 2001 taxable year,
petitioners owned stock that they purchased with a $15,000 loan.
Petitioners received a distribution of $3,930.14 from Wells Fargo
& Company during the 2001 taxable year.
Petitioners filed a Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax
Return, for the 2001 taxable year. They did not report any
- 4 -
income from the discharge of the loan. The 2001 tax return
listed petitioner Sioana U. Ngatuvai’s occupation as a “cook” and
petitioner S. Moli Ngatuvai’s occupation as a “carpenter”.
Petitioners reported wages of $42,861,3 of which $9,054.97 was
withheld for Federal income tax, Social Security tax, Medicare
tax, and State income tax.
Discussion
As a general rule, the Internal Revenue Code imposes a tax
on the taxable income of every individual. See sec. 1. Section
61(a) defines gross income for purposes of calculating taxable
income as “all income from whatever source derived” and further
specifies that “Income from discharge of indebtedness” is
included within this broad definition. Sec. 61(a)(12). The
underlying rationale for such inclusion is that to the extent a
taxpayer is released from indebtedness, he or she realizes an
accession to income due to the freeing of assets previously
offset by the liability. See United States v. Kirby Lumber Co.,
284 U.S. 1, 3 (1931).
Statutory exceptions to the above rule are set forth in
section 108. Section 108(a) excludes from the operation of
section 61(a) indebtedness (1) which is discharged in a title 11
case, (2) which is discharged when the taxpayer is insolvent, (3)
3
The Forms W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, indicate that
petitioners received wages of $42,638.20.
- 5 -
which consists of qualified farm indebtedness, or (4) which
consists of qualified real property business indebtedness. Sec.
108(a)(1).
With respect to the exclusion based upon a discharge when
the taxpayer is insolvent, the term “insolvent” is defined as the
excess of liabilities over the fair market value of assets. Sec.
108(d)(3). Insolvency is determined on the basis of the
taxpayer’s assets and liabilities immediately before the
discharge. See id.; Traci v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-708.
Liabilities include excess nonrecourse debt, the amount by which
a nonrecourse debt exceeds the fair market value of the property
securing the debt, but only to the extent that the excess
nonrecourse debt is discharged.
With respect to the exclusion based upon a discharge of
qualified farm indebtedness, indebtedness of a taxpayer is
treated as qualified farm indebtedness if two conditions are
satisfied. First, such indebtedness must be incurred directly in
connection with the operation by the taxpayer of the trade or
business of farming. Sec. 108(g)(2)(A). Second, 50 percent or
more of the aggregate gross receipts of the taxpayer for the 3
taxable years preceding the taxable year in which the discharge
of such indebtedness occurs is attributable to the trade or
business of farming. Sec. 108(g)(2)(B).
- 6 -
In general, taxpayers bear the burden of proof with respect
to whether they are entitled to an exclusion. See Rule 142(a);
Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933). Exclusions from
gross income should be construed narrowly, and taxpayers must
bring themselves within the clear scope of the exclusion. See
Dobra v. Commissioner, 111 T.C. 339, 349 n.16 (1998). The burden
may shift to the Commissioner if the taxpayer introduces credible
evidence and satisfies the requirements under section 7491(a)(2)
to substantiate items, maintain required records, and fully
cooperate with the Commissioner’s reasonable requests. Sec.
7491(a).
In the present case, the burden of proof remains on
petitioners, since they have neither taken a position as to
whether the burden of proof should be placed on respondent nor
established that they have complied with the requirements of
section 7491(a). As such, petitioners have failed to meet their
burden that they are entitled to any of the exclusions under
section 108(a)(1). There is no evidence in the record that
discharge of the USDA loan occurred as part of a bankruptcy
proceeding or that the USDA loan constitutes a qualified real
property business indebtedness. The record does not support a
conclusion that the USDA loan is a qualified farm indebtedness.
Petitioners were no longer in the trade or business of farming 3
years prior to the discharge of said loan in 2001, as required
- 7 -
under section 108(g)(2)(B). While the record is not clear as to
the exact date of discharge and can be characterized as
incomplete, we are convinced that the preceding facts found by us
are sufficient for us to conclude that petitioners were solvent
at the time the USDA loan was discharged. Their assets in 2001
included stock of approximately $15,000, a home estimated to be
worth $60,000, a truck of negligible value, and moneys from wages
and distributions in excess of $30,000. In comparison, their
liabilities in 2001 included the outstanding debt from their
mortgage of $43,000, the excess nonrecourse debt of $30,714 from
the USDA loan, and the $15,000 loan used to buy stock. We
sustain respondent’s determination that petitioners must include
$30,714 in their gross income for 2001, such amount representing
the portion of the loan discharged by the USDA.4
Reviewed and adopted as the report of the Small Tax Case
Division.
4
“The moment it becomes clear that a debt will never have
to be paid, such debt must be viewed as having been discharged.”
Cozzi v. Commissioner, 88 T.C. 435, 445 (1987); see also Rinehart
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-71. The fact that a taxpayer
did not receive a Form 1099 does not convert taxable income into
nontaxable income. Vaughn v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-317,
affd. without published opinion 15 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir. 1993).
- 8 -
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered
for respondent with respect to
the deficiency and for
petitioners with respect to
the accuracy-related penalty
under section 6662.