Abstract
In theoretical and practical discussion of the income tax treatment of personal expenditures, interest cost on consumer debt has been a persistent subject of misunderstanding. This article shows the source of the misunderstanding to be twofold: an erroneous theoretical conclusion that deduction of consumer interest cost is inconsistent with an ideal definition of income, and a confusion about the "second best" treatment of interest cost incurred to purchase durable goods when the tax law already lapses from the ideal by not inputing rental values. The article suggests that even for durable goods purchases the continuance of deductibility is probably best.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
