# Nelson v. Commissioner

> United States Tax Court · February 19, 1998 · 110 T.C. 114

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4473026

## Case

- **Full name:** MEL T. NELSON v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
- **Court:** United States Tax Court
- **Decided:** February 19, 1998
- **Citations:** 110 T.C. 114; 110 T.C. No. 12; 1998 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 11
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Foley
- **Judges:** HAMBLEN
- **Cited by:** 22 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4473026

## Opinion text

Foley, J., concurring in result only: I agree with the majority’s holding. Section 108(d)(7)(A) explicitly provides that subsections (a), (b), (c), and (g) of section 108 are to be applied at the corporate level. I write separately to emphasize that after the application of section 108(b) and the resulting reduction of tax attributes (i.e., MAl’s net operating loss) there are no “items of income”, tax exempt or otherwise, to which section 1366(a) may apply. The legislative history accompanying the Bankruptcy Tax Act of 1980 states that after a taxpayer reduces its tax attributes, “Any further remaining debt discharge amount is disregarded, i.e., does not result in income or have other tax consequences.” S. Rept. 96-1035, at 2 (1980), 1980- 2 C.B. 620 , 621. Thus, there are no “items of income”, and, as a result, no basis adjustment pursuant to section 1367. Accordingly, there is no need to distinguish between “tax-exempt” and “deferred” income.
Swift, Parr, Whalen, and Colvin, JJ., agree with this concurring in result only opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4473026. Public record. Not legal advice.