David Zarin was a high-stakes gambler at Resorts International Casino in Atlantic City. Between 1979 and 1980, Resorts repeatedly extended his casino credit, issuing gambling markers (essentially credit instruments exchangeable for gaming chips) far beyond what New Jersey's casino regulations allowed, particularly given evidence of Zarin's compulsive gambling. Over time, Zarin executed markers totaling approximately $3.435 million. He lost the funds at the gaming tables and defaulted. When Resorts sought to collect, the New Jersey Attorney General and the Casino Control Commission pursued proceedings against the casino for violating credit-extension rules. Resorts entered into a consent order agreeing not to enforce the markers through judicial collection. Zarin and Resorts later settled their dispute for $500,000, which Zarin paid. The IRS asserted that Zarin realized COD income equal to the difference between the face amount of the markers and the settlement amount (roughly $2.935 million), and the Tax Court agreed. Zarin appealed to the Third Circuit.
Does a taxpayer realize cancellation-of-indebtedness income under § 61(a)(12) when he settles a large gambling-marker obligation—largely unenforceable under state law and disputed in good faith—for a fraction of its face amount?
Gross income includes income from discharge of indebtedness. IRC § 61(a)(12). For COD purposes, "indebtedness of the taxpayer" means a debt for which the taxpayer is liable or subject to which the taxpayer holds property. IRC § 108(d)(1). Under the contested liability (or disputed debt) doctrine, if a taxpayer, in good faith, disputes the amount or enforceability of a debt and subsequently settles, the settlement fixes the amount of the liability; the excess of the original alleged debt over the settlement amount is not treated as COD income because the portion above the settlement was never a fixed obligation. Additionally, state law governs whether a liability exists or is enforceable, and federal tax consequences follow from that characterization.
No. The Third Circuit reversed the Tax Court and held that Zarin did not realize cancellation-of-indebtedness income from the settlement. The court reasoned that (1) the casino markers, issued in violation of New Jersey regulations and subject to regulatory orders barring judicial enforcement, did not constitute "indebtedness of the taxpayer" for which he was liable under § 108(d)(1); and (2) independently, under the contested liability doctrine, the good-faith settlement fixed Zarin's liability at $500,000, so no COD income arose from extinguishing any amount above that figure.
The court began by examining the nature and enforceability of the casino markers. New Jersey's casino regulatory regime strictly controlled extension of credit. The Attorney General's action and the resulting consent order against Resorts established that credit had been improperly extended to Zarin; as a result, the casino could not enforce the markers through ordinary judicial means. Because federal tax consequences build on state law rights and obligations, a largely unenforceable claim does not, as a matter of substance, create a fixed, personal liability. That conclusion implicated § 108(d)(1), which defines "indebtedness of the taxpayer" as a debt for which the taxpayer is liable or subject to which he holds property. The court reasoned that Zarin was not personally liable in any meaningful legal sense due to the regulatory bar on enforcement, and he did not hold property subject to the debt at the time of settlement. The chips he received were not general-purpose cash or collateral; they had restricted, in-casino utility and no independent market value to free up Zarin's other assets. Thus, the settlement did not relieve him of a conventional, enforceable liability, and it did not produce a net accretion to wealth of the kind § 61(a)(12) targets. Separately, the court applied the contested liability doctrine. Where the existence or amount of a purported debt is genuinely disputed and subsequently settled, the settlement amount is treated as establishing the true extent of the obligation. The rationale is that only the settled amount represents a fixed, legally cognizable liability; extinguishment of the remainder does not free the taxpayer from any real obligation and therefore does not create COD income. Here, Zarin's liability was contested in good faith—backed by New Jersey's regulatory actions—and the parties negotiated a $500,000 resolution. That figure therefore fixed the debt's amount, and eliminating the balance could not produce COD income. The court also addressed and rejected the Tax Court's view that casino chips functioned as a cash loan, emphasizing that chips lack the fungibility and spending power of cash and were obtained through credit extended in violation of state rules. The opinion further noted that, conceptually, reducing what Zarin owed could be analogized to a purchase price adjustment for chips as property—an adjustment that generally is not treated as COD income—though the court did not need to rely on that analogy to resolve the case. On these grounds, the court reversed the deficiency attributable to alleged COD income.
Zarin is a leading case on two fronts. First, it demonstrates how state law enforceability can determine whether a "debt" exists for federal COD purposes. Second, it revitalizes the contested liability doctrine: when a debt is disputed in good faith and settled, the settlement defines the debt's amount, often precluding COD income on the excess. For students, the case illustrates the interaction between statutory text (§§ 61 and 108), common-law doctrines, and policy (whether the taxpayer experienced a real accession to wealth). It has been criticized and limited by some authorities, and other circuits have read § 108(d)(1) more broadly, so its reasoning should be applied with attention to jurisdiction and facts.
Zarin v. Commissioner occupies an important and sometimes controversial space in COD jurisprudence. It teaches that federal tax law does not mechanically tax the spread between an alleged debt and a settlement amount. Instead, courts ask whether a legally enforceable, personal liability existed and whether the amount was contested in good faith, such that a settlement defines the true obligation. On those grounds, Zarin's $500,000 settlement of largely unenforceable gambling markers did not generate COD income.