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.comThis 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.
Business partnerships, much like marriages, function exceptionally well when partners are aligned but can become challenging when disagreements arise. Partnership disputes often stem from conflicts over business strategy, financial management, and unclear role definitions among partners. Understanding Business Partnership Conflicts Partnership conflicts place significant stress on businesses, making proactive measures essential. Partnerships should establish detailed […]
Author: Christopher D. Warren
*** The original article was featured on Bloomberg Tax, April 28, 2025 — As a tax attorney who spends much of my time helping people and companies who have large, unresolved issues with the IRS or one or more state tax departments, it often occurs to me that the best service that I can provide […]
Author: Scott H. Novak
On January 28, 2025, the Trump Administration terminated Gwynne Wilcox from her position as a Member of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or the Board). Gwynne Wilcox, a union side lawyer for Levy Ratner, was confirmed to the Board for an original term in 2021 and confirmed again for a successive five-year term expiring […]
Author: Matthew F. Mimnaugh
Breach of contract disputes are the most common type of business litigation. Therefore, nearly all New York and New Jersey businesses will likely have to deal with a contract dispute at least once. Understanding when to file a breach of contract lawsuit and how long you have to sue for breach of contract is essential […]
Author: Brittany P. Tarabour
Closing your business can be a difficult and challenging task. For corporations, the process includes formal approval of the dissolution, winding up operations, resolving tax liabilities, and filing all required paperwork. Whether you need to understand how to dissolve a corporation in New York or New Jersey, it’s imperative to take all of the proper […]
Author: Christopher D. Warren
Commercial leases can take a variety of forms, which is often confusing for both landlords and tenants. Understanding the different types, especially the gross lease structure, is important when selecting the lease that best suits your needs. One key distinction between lease types is how rent is calculated and paid. This article addresses the two […]
Author: Robert L. Baker, Jr.
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!