Tax Research Paper

1232 WordsJan 18, 20135 Pages
74353 777 Cross St. Moscow, ID 83843 May 4, 2012 Mr. Andy Squeeze 3471 Paradise Ridge Rd. Viola, Idaho 83872 Dear Mr. Squeeze, Currently, you own all of the stock in Valley Hardware Store Inc., a corporation that operates in Viola, Idaho. Mr. Broker, of Big Investment Company has given you 2 recommendations: the first recommendation is that you should move your investments in Certificates of Deposits(CD’s) to state and municipal bonds; the second recommendation given is that you should take out another mortgage as additional capital to also be converted into Municipal bonds. The purpose of which is to receive a double tax benefit offered by taking advantage of both the interest deductions on the new mortgage allowed under…show more content…
§163(a) and I.R.C. §103(a). As for the issue of whether or not you should take out another mortgage in order to supplement the conversion of Certificate of Deposits into Municipal Bonds, again, I.R.C. §265(a)(2) comes into effect and disallows any interest deductions sought, thus, removing the profitable advantage offered though the interest rates. In similar situations, such as Wisconsin Cheeseman, Inc. v. United States, 388 F. 2d 420 (1968), the Court ruled against the taxpayer on the claim that the taxpayer was only allowed deductions on the interest of the indebtedness incurred prior to the purchase of the tax exempt investments, meaning that only the interest deductions on the new debt incurred was disallowed. In Wynn v. United States, 411 F. 2d 614 (1969), the taxpayer was also disallowed to claim any deduction for the interest payments on the loans he incurred from the bank, the purpose of which was to expand the amount of tax-exempt securities the taxpayer currently possessed. In Drybrough v. Commissioner, 376 F. 2d 350 (1967), that taxpayer also tries to deduct the interest payments on his leveraged mortgages in order to expand their tax-exempt investment fund, and again, the Court referred to I.R.C. §265(a)(2), which forbids such deductions on the basis that the sum of the interest paid was used to purchase tax exempt securities, thus ruling against the taxpayer. Although the Court’s ruled
Open Document