Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Date: September 23, 2015
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.com
This decision reversed a previous tax court decision that stated unmarried individuals were subject to the same $1.1 million limitation as married couples, thus splitting the deduction to $550,000 each.
In previous decisions, the tax court and the IRS held that Sec.162(h)(3) applied to any two individuals that owned a home together, even if they did not jointly file tax returns. This home mortgage interest deduction threshold applies to mortgage interest up to $1 million in home-acquisition debt and up to $100,000 in home-equity debt on a qualified residence. The IRS deems a qualified residence as either a primary home or a residence in addition to a primary residence.
The way this works is that the $1.1 million home mortgage interest deduction applies strictly to an individual taxpayer. However, married couples file jointly, which provides them with treatment as an individual taxpayer by the IRS. So under Sec.162(h)(3), a married couple can only deduct their mortgage interest up to the $1.1 million total of the debt limit.
The court argued that Sec.162(h)(3) did not specifically state how the debt limit applied to unmarried individuals who own a residence together. Similarly, the court stated that the code also did not clearly define whether the $1.1 million deduction limit for unmarried co-owners is applicable for a qualified residence, regardless of the number of owners. Therefore, there is no distinction drawn as to whether the limit of the debt can be claimed by any individual taxpayer.
The court also cited the fact that the IRS did not determine how the debt limit applied to unmarried co-owners of a property until it issued a chief counsel advisory in 2009. With this advisory, the IRS ruled that the debt limit applied on a per-residence basis, and not a per-taxpayer basis. However, the court deemed that a chief counsel advisory was not an authority, thus the debt limit has no clear designation for unmarried co-owners.
The case involved Bruce Voss and Charles Sophy, co-owners of a property who each claimed a home mortgage interest deduction of $1.1 million under Section 163(h)(3). However, the IRS split the deduction between Voss and Sophy at $550,000 each because they co-owned the property, thereby significantly limiting the amount of their deductions.
The court reversed the tax court decision, finding the mortgage debt limit provision in the tax code applies on a per-taxpayer basis except in the case of married individuals. This makes each member of the couple eligible to the homeowner mortgage interest deduction for up to the $1.1 million limit.
Following the decision, the IRS is still eligible to suspend these cases and not issue refunds for amended returns filed while the statute of limitations remains open. Further, if refunds are issued, the IRS may seek to recover these funds if the Supreme Court reverses this decision in the future.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

Few situations create more uncertainty than learning that an employee has filed a whistleblower complaint. Questions arise immediately: Is the allegation legitimate? Should the employee be placed on leave? Do we need to notify our insurance carrier? Are we now prevented from disciplining the employee if there are unrelated ongoing work related issues? There is […]
Author: Sean M. Pena

When a business reaches the point where it can no longer service its debts or otherwise resolve its liabilities, management is often faced with a difficult question: is a bankruptcy filing necessary or is there another way to perform an orderly liquidation or sale of the business assets? While Chapters 7 and 11 of the […]
Author: John D. Giampolo

For many years, the New Jersey Mansion Tax has been a significant consideration in high-value real estate transactions. Recent legislative changes, however, have substantially altered how the tax operates, including who is responsible for paying it and the amount owed in certain transactions. Whether you are purchasing, selling, or investing in New Jersey real estate, […]
Author: George McGowan

As our personal and financial lives increasingly move online, estate planning must evolve to address a new category of property: digital assets. From email accounts and social media profiles to cryptocurrency and cloud-stored business records, these assets often carry both financial and sentimental value. Yet, without proper planning, they can become inaccessible—or even lost—upon incapacity […]
Author: Marc J. Comer

In today’s mergers and acquisitions market, representation and warranty (R&W) insurance has become a common feature of deal negotiations. Once used primarily in larger transactions, R&W insurance is now frequently incorporated into middle-market deals as buyers and sellers look for efficient ways to allocate risk and close deals. When structured properly, R&W insurance can help […]
Author: George McGowan

Receiving a federal grand jury subpoena is not something most businesses or individuals anticipate. While it can be concerning, a federal grand jury subpoena does not necessarily mean that you are being accused of wrongdoing. It does, however, mean that a federal criminal investigation is underway and that federal prosecutors believe you may possess information […]
Author: Sean M. Pena
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!