Federal Home Mortgage Corp. v. Commissioner

125 T.C. 248 (2005)

From our private database of 46,000+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Federal Home Mortgage Corp. v. Commissioner

United States Tax Court
125 T.C. 248 (2005)

  • Written by Heather Whittemore, JD

Facts

The Federal Home Mortgage Corporation (the corporation) (plaintiff) purchased residential mortgages. The corporation offered a prior-approval program, through which it would buy prior-approval mortgage contracts from originators. The corporation charged a fee to offer to purchase a prior-approval mortgage contract. The originators then had 60 days to accept the purchase contract (the 60-day period). If the originator accepted the purchase contract, it was charged a 2 percent commitment fee. If the originator delivered the mortgage to the corporation, 1.5 percent of the commitment fee would be refunded to the originator. The remaining 0.5 percent portion of the commitment fee was nonrefundable. Between 1985 and 1991, the corporation treated the 0.5 percent commitment fee as an option premium for tax purposes. If the originator delivered the mortgage to the corporation, the corporation would deduct the 0.5 percent commitment fee from the cost of the mortgage. If the originator did not deliver the mortgage to the corporation, the corporation would recognize the fee as taxable income for the year in which the 60-day period ended. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue (the Commissioner) (defendant) determined a deficiency against the corporation related to the 0.5 percent commitment fees. The Commissioner argued that the fees were not option premiums, as their full amount was determinable upon receipt and the corporation had a fixed right to receive them. The Commissioner argued that the corporation was required to recognize all the fees as income in the year they were received. The corporation petitioned the United States Tax Court for a redetermination.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Ruwe, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 743,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 743,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,000 briefs, keyed to 986 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 743,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,000 briefs - keyed to 986 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership