Private Letter Ruling 201742017 Released October 20, 2017 Approved

Court-ordered deficiency write-offs require no Forms 1099-C

Apply this to your situation

This page covers one taxpayer's ruling from 2017, which can't be cited as precedent. Ezel answers your situation under the current Code and IRS guidance, with citations.

Currency note: this determination was released in 2017
Statutory amendments, regulation changes, court decisions, or later IRS guidance may have changed the analysis since then. Treat this page as historical context, not current tax advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, threshold, or position mentioned here.
Not precedent. Under 26 U.S.C. § 6110(k)(3), this written determination may not be used or cited as precedent. It resolved one taxpayer's situation on its specific facts, and identifying details were redacted by the IRS before release. The official IRS release (linked on this page as a PDF) is the authoritative source.
About this page: The plain-English summary and ruling snapshot below were written by Ezel based on the official IRS release. The full text is the IRS's own document.
View official IRS release (PDF)

Plain-English summary

A financial institution was barred by a court from collecting consumer deficiency balances because its notices violated state law. A later class settlement required the institution to write off those balances. The IRS concluded that the court order and settlement did not amount to an agreement by the parties to discharge debt for less than full consideration or a creditor decision to discontinue collection and discharge the debt. Because no identifiable event under the reporting regulation occurred, the institution did not have to issue Forms 1099-C for the write-offs.

Ruling snapshot

  • Question: Must the financial institution report court-ordered deficiency-balance write-offs on Forms 1099-C?
  • Outcome: approved
  • Key authorities: IRC § 6050P; Treas. Reg. § 1.6050P-1; IRC § 6110(k)(3)

Full text (IRS public release)

Internal Revenue Service                                    Department of the Treasury
                                                            Washington, DC 20224

Number: 201742017                                           Third Party Communication: None
Release Date: 10/20/2017                                    Date of Communication: Not Applicable
Index Number: 6050P.00-00
                                                            Person To Contact:
---------------------------                                 ----------------------, ID No. ------------------
-----------------------------------                         Telephone Number:
---------------------------------                           ----------------------
--------------------------                                  Refer Reply To:
                                                            CC:PA:02
In Re: -----------------------------------                  PLR-109860-17
                                                            Date:
                                                            July 20, 2017




Legend

Entity = -----------------------------------

State X = -------------

State Y = -----------

Asset = -------------------

Collection Action = ----------------------------------------------------------

Notices = ---------------------

Plaintiff =---------------

Court = --------------------------------------------------------

Date 1 = ---------------------------

Dear ----------------:

This letter responds to the letter dated March 22, 2017, submitted on behalf of Entity
requesting a ruling that Entity is not required by I.R.C. § 6050P and Treasury
Regulations § 1.6050P-1 to file Forms 1099-C to report the write-off of certain
balances under an order from the Court and subsequent settlement agreement. For the
reasons set forth below, we conclude that Entity is not required to report the discharge
PLR-109860-17                                2

of indebtedness because none of the identifiable events listed in § 1.6050P-1 has
occurred.

                                          Facts

Entity is a financial institution operating in States X and Y and engaged in, among other
things, financing consumer Asset purchases. When consumers defaulted on these
loans, Entity took Collection Action and, pursuant to State X and State Y law, sent
Notices to the consumers. Pursuant to State X and State Y law, Collection Action would
sometimes result in a deficiency balance. Plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit against
Entity, alleging Entity’s Notices were deficient under State X law and State Y law, and
seeking, amongst other things, an injunction prohibiting Entity from collecting the
outstanding deficiency balances from the class of debtors who received similar Notices.

On Date 1, Court ruled that the Notices were deficient under State X law and State Y
law and that Entity was barred from collecting any deficiency balance pursuant to the
Notices that it sent to Plaintiff and the class. Subsequently, Entity and the class entered
into a settlement agreement which included, inter alia, a provision requiring Entity to
write-off deficiency balances owed by the class.

                                     Law & Analysis

Section 6050P of the Internal Revenue Code requires that an applicable entity report
any discharges (in whole or in part) of indebtedness of any person in excess of $600 on
a Form 1099-C. Section 1.6050P-1(a)(1) of the Treasury Regulations provides that, for
information reporting purposes, a discharge of indebtedness is deemed to have
occurred upon the occurrence of an “identifiable event,” whether or not an actual
discharge of indebtedness has occurred on or before the date on which the identifiable
event has occurred. Section 1.6050P-1(b)(2) provides a list of identifiable events. Of
the listed identifiable events, two are potentially relevant to the requested ruling:
agreement by the parties to discharge the debt for less than full consideration and a
decision by the creditor to discontinue collection activity and discharge the debt.

In this case, the Court’s order barred Entity from collecting the deficiency balances.
Entity and the class did not arrive at an agreement to discharge the indebtedness, nor
did Entity decide to discharge the indebtedness, within the meaning of section 1.6050P-
1(b)(2). Because none of the identifiable events listed in section 1.6050P-1(b)(2)
occurred, Entity is not required to report these write-offs.

                                       Conclusion

Based solely on the information provided and representations made, we conclude that
Entity is not required to file Forms 1099-C with respect to the write-offs of the class
PLR-109860-17                                 3

members’ deficiency balances because none of the identifiable events listed in section
1.6050P-1(b)(2) has occurred.

Except as expressly provided herein, no opinion is expressed or implied concerning the
tax consequences of any aspect of any transaction or item discussed or referenced in
this letter.

This ruling is directed only to the taxpayer requesting it. Section 6110(k)(3) of the Code
provides that it may not be used or cited as precedent.

In accordance with the Power of Attorney on file with this office, copies of this letter are
being sent to your authorized representatives.

The rulings contained in this letter are based upon information and representations
submitted by the taxpayer and accompanied by a penalty of perjury statement executed
by an appropriate party. While this office has not verified any of the material submitted
in support of the request for rulings, it is subject to verification on examination.

                                       Sincerely,




                                       Blaise Dusenberry
                                       Senior Technician Reviewer
                                       (Procedure & Administration)



Enclosures: (1) Copy of letter for section 6110 purposes
            (2) Notice of Intention to Disclose, Notice 437

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read what the IRS ruled for one taxpayer in 2017, and it can't be cited as precedent. Ezel checks the current Internal Revenue Code and IRS guidance and answers your specific situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the authority it relies on.