rr-07-32.pdf

Preserve advance releases and the authoritative Internal Revenue Bulletin rendition; directory timestamps are file-publication metadata, not legal effective dates. HTML bulletins begin June 2003; earlier available issues require full PDF parsing.

This collection currently includes the publisher’s available advance-release directory. Historical bulletin renditions are discovered separately; an advance-release record alone does not certify the collection archive complete.

1

Part I

Section 451.—General Rule for Taxable Year of Inclusion
26 CFR 1.451-1: General rule for taxable year of inclusion.
(Also: Part I, §§ 166, 446; 1.166-2, 1.446-1, 1.446-2.)

Rev. Rul. 2007-32

ISSUES
1. If federal banking rules require a bank to suspend the recognition of certain
uncollected “accrued interest” as defined in § 1.446-2 of the Income Tax Regulations as
income for regulatory financial statement purposes should the bank also cease
recognizing uncollected accrued interest into income for federal income tax purposes?
2. If a bank uses a conformity method of accounting as provided for in § 1.166-
2(d) but does not recognize uncollected accrued interest as income for regulatory
financial statement purposes, when should the bank recognize a worthless debt with
respect to uncollected accrued interest for federal income tax purposes?
3. If a bank receives payments on a loan where the bank for federal income tax
purposes either (i) previously recognized the uncollected accrued interest as income
and subsequently deducted the accrued interest receivable as a worthless debt under

2
section 166 or (ii) did not recognized the uncollected accrued interest on the loan as
income, how should the payments be characterized for federal income tax purposes?
FACTS
X corporation is a bank as defined in § 1.166-2(d)(4)(i). X determines its taxable
income using an accrual method of accounting and files its federal income tax returns
on a calendar year basis. Loans made by X are subject to § 1.446-2, which determines
the amount of “accrued interest” related to each loan for federal income tax purposes.
X is subject to regulatory supervision by federal banking authorities (“supervisory
authorities”) and is required to prepare regulatory financial statements that comply with
federal banking rules. For regulatory financial statement purposes, unless a loan is
both well secured and in the process of collection, federal banking rules generally
require that X suspend the recognition into income of uncollected accrued interest on a
loan and reverse any previously recognized uncollected interest income if:
(i) the loan is maintained on a cash basis because of deterioration in the
borrower’s financial condition;
(ii) payment in full of principal or interest is not expected; or
(iii) payment of principal or interest has been in default for a period of 90 days or
more.
Under federal banking rules, a loan may be considered a bankable asset (i.e.,
not written off for regulatory financial statement purposes) even if accrued interest on
the loan is no longer being recognized as income (or was previously recognized and
subsequently charged off) for regulatory financial statement purposes. In this revenue
ruling, the loan is referred to as a “non-accrual loan receivable.”

3
In general, federal banking rules require a bank such as X to apply any payment
received on a non-accrual loan receivable to reduce its recorded investment in the loan
(i.e., treat all monies that come in on the loan as a collection of loan principal) to the
extent necessary to eliminate doubt as to collectibility. Therefore, for regulatory
financial statement purposes, X characterizes any payment received on a non-accrual
loan receivable as a payment of principal rather than a payment of the outstanding
accrued interest on the loan until the remaining principal on the non-accrual loan
receivable is considered to be fully collectible.
On January 16, 2007, X classifies Loan A as a non-accrual loan receivable for
regulatory financial statement purposes because an amount of principal or interest has
become 90 days past due. Nonetheless, X reasonably expects the borrower to
continue making some but not all payments on the loan.
On January 16, 2007, the uncollected accrued interest on Loan A is $9,000
($8,000 attributable to the calendar year ending December 31, 2006, and $1,000
attributable to the period January 1, 2007 through January 16, 2007). Prior to January
17, 2007, X recognized the $9,000 as income for regulatory financial statement
purposes. During the period January 17, 2007 through December 31, 2007, an
additional $23,000 of accrued interest becomes due on Loan A.
Pursuant to federal banking rules, on January 16, 2007, X reverses the $9,000 of
uncollected accrued interest that had previously been recognized by making
adjustments to appropriate income statement and balance sheet accounts for regulatory
financial statement purposes. In addition, federal banking rules do not permit X to

4
recognize as income any of the $23,000 accrued interest attributable to the period
January 17, 2007 through December 31, 2007.
On January 1, 2008, X receives a $31,000 payment on Loan A. For regulatory
financial statement purposes, X characterizes the $31,000 payment as a recovery of
principal rather than a recovery of accrued interest. Therefore, X does not recognize
any of the $31,000 payment as interest income for regulatory financial statement
purposes.
X’s supervisory authorities, in connection with the most recent examination of X’s
regulatory financial statements and lending practices, have determined that X maintains
and applies standards that are consistent with federal banking rules.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Issue 1.
Section 1.446-2 provides rules for determining the amount of accrued interest
(other than interest described in § 1.446-2(a)(2)) that is generated on a loan over time
for federal income tax purposes.
Section 1.446-2(a)(1) provides that the period in which a taxpayer recognizes
accrued interest (determined under § 1.446-2(b) or § 1.446-2(c)) in gross income is
determined under the taxpayer’s regular method of accounting.
Section 451(a) provides that the amount of any item of gross income is included
in gross income for the taxable year in which received by the taxpayer, unless, under
the method of accounting used in computing taxable income, such amount is to be
properly accounted for in a different period.

5
In the case of an accrual method taxpayer, § 1.451-1(a) provides that income is
includible in gross income when all the events have occurred which fix the right to
receive such income and the amount thereof can be determined with reasonable
accuracy. See also § 1.446-1(c)(1)(ii).
As an accrual method taxpayer, X generally is required to recognize accrued
interest determined under § 1.446-2 into gross income for the taxable year in which all
the events have occurred which fix the right to receive such interest and the amount
thereof can be determined with reasonable accuracy. See § 1.451-1(a). Under the “all
events” test, a taxpayer’s right to receive income becomes fixed on the earlier of the
date that: (1) payment is earned through performance; (2) payment is due; or (3)
payment is actually received. Rev. Rul. 84-31, 1984-1 C.B.127. An amount of accrued
interest determined pursuant to § 1.446-2 satisfies the “reasonable accuracy”
requirement of § 1.451-1(a).
Although federal banking rules do not permit X to recognize accrued interest
related to a non-accrual loan receivable as income for regulatory financial statement
purposes, regulatory accounting rules are not controlling for federal income tax
purposes. See Old Colony R. Co. v. Commissioner, 284 U.S. 552, 562 (1932).
“A fixed right to a determinable amount does not require accrual, however, if the
income is uncollectible when the right to receive the income item arises. Accrual of
income is not required when a fixed right to receive arises if there is not a reasonable
expectancy that the claim will ever be paid.” European Am. Bank & Trust Co. v. United
States, 20 Cl. Ct. 594, 605 (1990) (footnotes omitted), aff’d per curiam, 940 F.2d 677
(Fed. Cir 1991); see also Jones Lumber Co. v. Commissioner, 404 F.2d 764, 766 (6th

6
Cir. 1968) (stating that “[t]he right to receive . . . determines the accrual of income
unless, at the time the right arises, there exists a reasonable doubt as to its
collectibility”); Koehring Co. v. United States, 421 F.2d 715, 721 (Ct. Cl. 1970) (stating
that “a reasonable doubt as to the collectibility of a debt is a sufficient reason to justify
its nonaccrual as income”); Rev. Rul. 80-361, 1980-2 C.B. 164 (citing Jones Lumber
Co., supra.)
The “no reasonable expectancy of payment” exception to the fundamental rules
of income accrual is strictly construed. “For accrual of income to be prevented,
uncertainty as to collection must be substantial.” European Am. Bank & Trust Co., 20
Cl. Ct. at 605. To treat an item as non-accruable because of doubtful collectibility, the
cases generally have required substantial evidence as to the financial instability or
insolvency of the debtor. See Jones Lumber Co., 404 F.2d at 766. This substantiation
requirement has been applied on a loan by loan basis.
Temporary financial difficulty of a debtor cannot support non-recognition of
income absent the existence of real doubt regarding ultimate payment. Koehring Co.,
421 F.2d 715, 721-722; see also Harmont Plaza Inc. v. Commissioner, 64 T.C. 632, 650
(1975), aff’d, 549 F.2d 414 (6
th
Cir. 1977) (stating that “the fact that a lapse of time is
contemplated before actual satisfaction is possible does not constitute the requisite
doubtful collectibility”). If there is some doubt regarding receipt of payment but a
reasonable person would have an expectancy of payment, then an accrual method
taxpayer is required to recognize the income.
When an income item is properly accrued and subsequently becomes
uncollectible, a taxpayer's remedy is by way of a bad debt deduction under section 166

7
rather than through elimination of the accrual. Rev. Rul. 80-361. See also § 1.166-1(e)
(relating to a bad debt deduction for uncollected income items included as income for
the taxable year in which the bad debt deduction is claimed or for a prior taxable year);
section 585 (allowing certain banks to deduct additions to a reserve for bad debts in lieu
of the bad debt deduction provided by section 166) and § 1.585-2(e)(2) (excluding
interest that has not been included in gross income from a loan used to determine
additions to the reserve for bad debts). This rule is applicable even when the item is
accrued and becomes uncollectible during the same taxable year. Spring City Foundry
Co. v. Commissioner, 292 U.S. 182 (1934). See also Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. v.
Commissioner, 31 B.T.A. 730, 751 (1934), acq., XIV-2C.B. (1935).
Rev. Rul. 81-18, 1981-1 C.B. 295, addressed an accrual basis savings and loan
association operating on a calendar year for federal income tax purposes. On its 1978
income tax return, the savings and loan recognized into income uncollected accrued
interest on a loan. However, no interest payments were ever received on the loan. On
January 30, 1979, the savings and loan charged off the previously recognized 1978
accrued interest for regulatory financial accounting purposes and recognized a bad debt
deduction for federal income tax purposes. The charge-off was made pursuant to then
existing Federal Home Loan Bank Board (FHLBB) regulations. The FHLBB regulations
required that interest be treated as uncollectible if any portion of the interest was due
but uncollected for a period in excess of 90 days. FHLBB examiners, upon their first
audit of the savings and loan after the charge-off, confirmed that the charge-off was
properly recognized for regulatory financial statement purposes and made in
accordance with established policies of the FHLBB. The ruling considered two issues:

8
(1) whether the savings and loan’s claim for the uncollected 1978 interest was worthless
for purposes of recognizing a section 166 bad debt deduction; and (2) whether the
savings and loan was required under section 451 and § 1.451-1(a) to recognize the
uncollected accrued interest on the nonperforming loan for periods after December 31,
1978 under the accrual method of accounting. The ruling concluded that for federal
income tax purposes, the savings and loan’s claim to the 1978 uncollected accrued
interest was a worthless debt for purposes of section 166. The ruling also concluded
that the savings and loan was not required to recognize any uncollected accrued
interest on the loan after December 31, 1978.
Unlike the situation in Rev. Rul. 81-18, where no payments on the loan were
made and there was no reasonable expectation of payment, in this revenue ruling X
reasonably expects the borrower to continue making some but not all payments on
Loan A. Therefore, the borrower’s default on Loan A only demonstrates that timely
repayment is not occurring. The late payment of interest by itself is not sufficient to
demonstrate that X has no reasonable expectation of payment of the accrued interest
related to Loan A. Under these circumstances, the “no reasonable expectancy of
payment” exception to the general accrual rule does not apply. See Koehring Co., 421
F.2d at 721-722; Harmont Plaza Inc., 64 T.C. at 650.
As an accrual method taxpayer, X is required to recognize the $8,000 of
uncollected 2006 accrued interest as income in X’s 2006 taxable year for federal
income tax purposes. X is also required to recognize the $24,000 of uncollected 2007
accrued interest in X’s 2007 taxable year. The result is the same regardless of whether
the bank uses a conformity method of accounting provided for in §1.166-2(d).

9
Issue 2.
Section 166(a)(1) provides that a deduction shall be allowed for any debt that
becomes worthless during the taxable year. In addition, section 166(a)(2) provides a
deduction for “partially worthless debts” not in excess of the part charged off in the
taxpayer’s books and records within the taxable year to the extent the Commissioner is
satisfied that the debt is recoverable only in part. A deduction for a worthless debt
arising from an item of taxable income shall be allowed only if the item is recognized as
taxable income during the taxable year in which the deduction is claimed or a prior
taxable year. See § 1.166-1(e).
In general, there is no bright line test for determining the period in which a debt
becomes worthless. However, § 1.166-2(d) permits a bank subject to supervision by
federal banking authorities to use a conformity method of accounting to determine when
a debt becomes worthless. Under a conformity method, debts that are charged off, in
whole or in part, for regulatory purposes are conclusively presumed to become
worthless for federal income tax purposes at the time of the regulatory charge off.
Under a conformity method of accounting, the bank is allowed to recognize a bad debt
deduction for the taxable year in which a debt is conclusively presumed to have become
worthless. See § 1.166-2(d)(3)(ii)(A)(2).
In connection with the most recent examination of X’s regulatory financial
statements, X’s supervisory authorities have determined that X maintains and applies
standards that are consistent with federal banking rules. See Rev. Proc. 92-84, 1992-2
C.B. 489 (providing the form for the determination). Therefore, X satisfies the express
determination requirement of § 1.166-2(d)(3)(iii)(D).

10
Various procedures can be used by a bank to classify a debt, or portion thereof,
as a loss asset described in § 1.166-2(d)(3)(ii)(C). Rev. Rul. 2001-59, 2001-2 C.B. 585.
On January 16, 2007, X reverses the recognition of the $9,000 of pre-January 17, 2007
uncollected accrued interest as interest income on Loan A ($8,000 of 2006 interest and
$1,000 of interest for the period January 1, 2007 through January 16, 2007) for
regulatory financial statement purposes. X’s reversal of the accrual of $9,000 of
uncollected pre-January 17, 2007 accrued interest, removes the interest receivable from
X’s books and records for regulatory financial statement purposes. Under federal
banking rules, the $9,000 interest receivable is treated as an uncollectible asset of such
little value that its inclusion as a bankable asset is not warranted. The reversal of the
accrual of the $9,000 of interest receivable constitutes a charge off of the interest
receivable as a loss asset for purposes of § 1.166-2(d)(3)(ii)(C).
For regulatory purposes, X does not recognize as income any of the $23,000 of
accrued interest attributable to the period January 17, 2007 through December 31, 2007
because X’s right to the $23,000 of accrued interest has such little value that recognition
of the accrued interest receivable as a bankable asset is not warranted. Under these
circumstances, X’s failure to recognize the $23,000 of accrued interest for regulatory
financial statement purposes is tantamount to recognizing the accrued interest as
income and immediately charging off the uncollected accrued interest receivable as a
loss asset.
As a result of X’s conformity method of accounting under § 1.166-2(d), X will be
entitled to claim a worthless debt deduction under section 166 in X’s tax year ending
December 31, 2007 for the $32,000 of uncollected accrued interest on Loan A ($8,000

11
of uncollected accrued interest in 2006 and $24,000 of uncollected accrued interest in
2007).
Issue 3.
In general, §1.446-2(e) provides that each payment made on a loan (other than
payments of additional interest or similar charges with regard to amounts that are not
paid when due) is treated as a payment of interest to the extent of any accrued interest
that is uncollected on the date the payment becomes due. The interest characterization
provided for in §1.446-2(e) applies to all payments made on a loan regardless of the
taxpayer’s overall method of accounting. For example, the interest characterization
provided for in § 1.446-2(e) would apply to a payment on a loan for which the
uncollected accrued interest was not previously recognized as income for federal
income tax purposes. Similarly, the interest characterization provided for in § 1.446-
2(e) would apply to a payment on a loan for which the uncollected accrued interest was
previously recognized as income for federal income tax purposes and subsequently
deducted as a worthless debt under the taxpayer’s method of accounting.
Under § 1.166-1(f), any amount attributable to a recovery of a bad debt, or of a
portion of a bad debt, which was allowed as a deduction from gross income in a prior
taxable year, is included in gross income for the taxable year of recovery, except to the
extent that the recovery is excluded from gross income under the provisions of section
111 and § 1.111-1.
On January 1, 2008, X receives a $31,000 payment on Loan A. For regulatory
financial statement purposes, X characterizes the $31,000 as a payment of loan
principal. However, under § 1.446-2(e), X is required to characterize any payment

12
received on Loan A (other than payments of additional interest or similar charges with
regard to amounts that are not paid when due) as a payment of interest for federal
income tax purposes to the extent there is uncollected accrued interest outstanding on
Loan A.
Immediately prior to the receipt of the $31,000 payment on January 1, 2008, the
uncollected accrued interest on Loan A is $32,000 ($8,000 attributable to 2006 and
$24,000 attributable to 2007). Therefore, §1.446-2(e) requires that X characterize the
$31,000 payment on Loan A as a payment of interest for federal income tax purposes.
The characterization of the $31,000 payment as interest under §1.446-2(e) would be the
same regardless of whether: (i) X had not yet recognized the $32,000 of uncollected
accrued interest on Loan A as income under its method of accounting for federal
income tax purposes, (ii) X had recognized the $32,000 of uncollected accrued interest
on Loan A as income for federal tax purposes but subsequently deducted the interest
receivable as a bad debt under section 166 under its method of accounting, or (iii) X
used a conformity method of accounting under § 1.166-2(d).
HOLDINGS
1. X is required to recognize in gross income the uncollected accrued interest on
Loan A for federal income tax purposes notwithstanding that federal banking rules
required X to suspend the recognition of accrued interest on Loan A into income for
regulatory financial statement purposes. For the taxable year ending December 31,
2006, X must recognize in gross income the $8,000 of uncollected accrued interest on
Loan A that was generated during 2006. For the taxable year ending December 31,
2007, X must recognize in gross income the $24,000 of uncollected accrued interest on

13
Loan A that was generated during 2007. X must recognize the uncollected accrued
interest as gross income in 2006 and 2007 regardless of whether X has elected a
conformity method of accounting under § 1.166-2(d)(3) to determine when a debt
becomes worthless.
2. As X uses a conformity method of accounting under §1.166-2(d), X’s $32,000
accrued interest receivable related to Loan A ($8,000 of uncollected accrued interest in
2006 and $24,000 of uncollected accrued interest in 2007) is considered worthless for
purposes of section 166 in the year the amount is charged off for regulatory financial
statement purposes. Therefore, for federal income tax purposes, X is allowed a
worthless debt deduction for the $32,000 of uncollected accrued interest written off for
regulatory financial statement purposes in the tax year ending December 31, 2007.
3. X is required to characterize the $31,000 payment received on Loan A in 2008
as a payment of interest for federal income tax purposes. The result would be the same
whether (i) X had not yet recognized the $32,000 of uncollected accrued interest on
Loan A as gross income under its method of accounting for federal income tax
purposes, (ii) X had recognized the $32,000 of uncollected accrued interest on Loan A
as gross income for federal tax purposes but subsequently deducted the receivable as a
bad debt under section 166, or (iii) X used a conformity method of accounting under
§ 1.166-2(d). If X had previously deducted the $32,000 of uncollected accrued interest
as a bad debt for federal income tax purposes then the subsequent $31,000 payment
on the loan will be characterized as a partial recovery of that bad debt.
EFFECT ON OTHER RULINGS

14
Rev. Rul. 81-18 is distinguished with regard to when interest accrues for federal
income tax purposes.
DRAFTING INFORMATION
The principal author of this revenue ruling is Timothy Sebastian of the Office of
the Associate Chief Counsel (Financial Institutions and Products). For further
information regarding this revenue ruling, contact Mr. Sebastian (202) 622-7417.