VOSS V. COMMISSIONER 796 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2015) CASE BRIEF

VOSS V. COMMISSIONER

796 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2015)

NATURE OF THE CASE: This is a tax dispute by two unmarried co-owners of real property, Bruce Voss and Charles Sophy (Ps). Ps appealed an affirmation of the Tax Court on an IRS (D) assessment that the statute's debt limits for mortgage interest deductions do not apply per taxpayer such that they were entitled to deduct interest on up to $1.1 million of home debt each.

FACTS: Sophy (P) and Voss (P) purchased a house together in California, and financed the purchase by obtaining a mortgage that was secured by the house. In 2002 Ps refinanced the house with a new mortgage loan of $500,000. The proceeds of the new mortgage loan, which was secured by the house, were used to pay off the original mortgage loan. Ps were jointly and severally liable for the new mortgage on the house. In 2002, Ps purchased a house in Beverly Hills. Ps acquired the Beverly Hills house as joint tenants and held the property as joint tenants during the years in issue. To finance the purchase, Ps obtained a mortgage secured by the Beverly Hills house. In 2003 Ps refinanced the Beverly Hills house by obtaining a new mortgage loan of $2 million. The proceeds of this new mortgage loan, which was secured by the Beverly Hills house, were used to pay off the original mortgage loan. Ps were jointly and severally liable for the mortgage on the Beverly Hills house. In 2003 Ps obtained a home equity line of credit of $300,000 for the Beverly Hills house, on which Ps were jointly and severally liable. Ps used the Beverly Hills house as their principal residence and the Rancho Mirage house (the first one) as their second residence. In 2006 Sophy paid mortgage interest of $94,698 for the two residences, and Voss paid $85,962. The total average balance in 2006 was $2,703,568. In 2007 Sophy paid mortgage interest of $99,901, and Voss paid $76,635. The total average balance in 2007 was $2,669,136. Ps each claimed deductions for qualified residence interest. D disallowed portions of Ds' deductions for qualified residence interest. D computed the applicable limitation ratio as $1.1 million ($1 million for acquisition indebtedness plus $100,000 for home equity indebtedness) over the entire average balance of the qualifying loans. Ps argue that they should each be allowed a deduction for interest paid on up to $1.1 million of acquisition and home equity indebtedness with respect to the residences that they jointly own. Under their interpretation, because these cases involve two unmarried co-owners, together they should be able to deduct interest paid on up to $2.2 million of acquisition and home equity indebtedness. The Tax Court agreed with the D. The Tax Court framed the question presented as 'whether the statutory limitations on the amount of acquisition and home equity indebtedness with respect to which interest is deductible under section 163(h)(3) are properly applied on a per-residence or per-taxpayer basis when residence co-owners are not married to each other.' Sophy v. Comm'r, 138 T.C. 204, 209 (2012). Ps appealed.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner