Printer Friendly
The Free Library
4,485,007 articles and books
Member login
User name  
Password 
 
Join us Forgot password?

Miller case is affirmed.


On Schedule F, "Farm Income and Expenses," accompanying their 1988 form 1040, the Millers deducted $367,000 in interest paid on income tax deficiencies for prior years.

The IRS disallowed the deduction, claiming it was "personal interest" under IRC section 163(h), which prohibits noncorporate taxpayers from deducting such interest. The IRS relied on temporary regulations section 1.163-9T, which says personal interest includes interest paid on underpayments of income taxes, regardless of the type of income involved.

In a pretrial motion, the district court district court n. 1) in the federal court system, a trial court for federal cases in a court district, which is all or a portion of a state. 2) a local court in some states. (See: court) ruled the regulation was too broad and thus invalid and that the interest would be deductible under section 162 if the Millers could prove the expense was "ordinary and necessary." In a second pretrial motion, the IRS claimed the interest was not deductible. The district court ruled for the IRS.

To qualify for a business deduction of tax deficiency interest, the district court said the taxpayer must show the underlying deficiency is ordinarily and necessarily an expected occurrence in the taxpayer's line of business. That is, the error that led to the tax deficiency must be typical of and reasonably anticipated in the taxpayer's field.

The district court said this could not have been true of the Millers' deficiency. They had engaged in a tax-deferral scheme, which could not be said to be an ordinary and necessary element of conducting a farming business. The Millers appealed the judgment to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Result: For the IRS. The district court decision in the IRS's favor was upheld. Further, the appellate court ruled that temporary regulations section 1.163-9T was valid, rejecting the district court's ruling.

* David Miller (8th Cir., 1995).
COPYRIGHT 1995 American Institute of CPA's
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 1995, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.

 Reader Opinion

Title:

Comment:



 

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Wagenbrenner, Anne
Publication:Journal of Accountancy
Article Type:Brief Article
Date:Dec 1, 1995
Words:277
Previous Article:IRS releases problem resolution brochure.(Brief Article)
Next Article:Gifts to pastor were not excludable.(Brief Article)
Topics:



Related Articles
Committees make strides in civil justice battle. (President's Page)
Aborting history.(abortion activism)
Florida court favors Amex employee in holding-out case. (American Express Tax and Business Services)
High Court to rule on preemption in medical device case.
Verdict Against NSPI Upheld.(National Spa and Pool Institute)(Brief Article)
Was it something we said? The government's defensive reply to TEI's amicus brief in Mead strikes a nerve.(Tax Executives Institute, United States v....
Independent contractor vs. employee.(Tax Court jurisdiction to determine additions to tax arising from worker classifications or determinations)
PHILLIPS IN COURT: NOT GUILTY.(SPORTS)
Beneath contempt.(Editorials)(Jailing journalists for doing their jobs is absurd)(Editorial)
Singleton v. Norris.(CIVIL RIGHTS)(Brief Article)

Terms of use | Copyright © 2008 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters | Submit articles