The Commissioner of Internal Revenue appeals a decision of the United States Tax Court, Arnold Raum,
Judge,
holding that taxpayer Jack Baker did not realize income as a result of interest-free loans from Sue Brett, Inc., a corporation owned wholly by taxpayer, his wife, and their children.
Baker v. Commissioner,
The Tax Court, reaffirming
Dean v. Commissioner,
Dean v. Commissioner
held that taxpayers owed no deficiency for the value of an interest-free loan from the corporation they controlled. An interest-free loan, the court said, does not result in any “taxable gain to the borrower” nor in any “interest deduction for the borrower” nor in any “interest income to the lender.”
The Commissioner’s assessment of deficiency against Baker is one in a series of recent attempts to overturn
Dean.
None has yet succeeded, either before the Tax Court or before any reviewing court of appeals. The First, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Circuits have affirmed the Tax Court’s adherence to
Dean. See Greenspun v. Commissioner,
We affirm the Tax Court’s decision, thereby deferring to Congress for any revision of the
Dean
rule, in this case as well. First, as the Tax Court noted in
Zager,
Second, we regard the Government’s approach, which would include imputed interest in taxable income under I.R.C. § 61 but allow no offsetting interest deduction under I.R.C. § 163,
2
as resting on too wooden and formalistic a reading of the language of section 163.
See Martin v. Commissioner,
*13
Third, due consideration of the desirability of taxing the value of interest-free loans is beyond the competence of a court reviewing a limited record, and is more appropriate for legislative scrutiny. Thus “courts have generally been inhospitable to the Commissioner’s attempts to make the granting of interest-free or low-interest loans a taxable event, absent an express statute or regulation.”
Crown v. Commissioner,
We have examined the thoroughly reasoned alternative approach suggested by Judge Goldberg’s dissenting opinion in
Martin,
Judgment affirmed.
Notes
. The Tax Court also found factually unsupported the Commissioner’s alternative argument that Dean was distinguishable because the taxpayer used the borrowed money to purchase tax-exempt securities. The Commissioner does not challenge this factual determination on appeal. We therefore do not reach the question whether in light of I.R.C. § 265(2), which denies an interest deduction to borrowers who invest the proceeds of an interest-bearing loan in tax-exempt instruments, Dean applies to a recipient of an interest-free loan who invests the proceeds in tax-exempt instruments.
. I.R.C. § 61 provides that “[g]ross income means all income from whatever source derived.” I.R.C. § 163 provides for the deduction of “interest paid ... within the taxable year on indebtedness.”
