Ang, I so understand your frustration there! I remember thinking something similar when I was cleaning up my defaulted debt. Now, I if the settled amount was for less than the original principal minus fees and interest, sure I could understand it. I mean, say I bought $2,500 worth of stuff on a credit card...if I didn't make any payments, and the debt was forgiven for say $2,000, then that was $500 worth of stuff I basically had given to me. I would have no problem counting that as income.
However, all of the debts I settled, I settled for an amount more than what the original credit limit on my account was....meaning, there was no way I was being forgiven any portion I actually spent...I was simply being forgiven fees and interest. I wouldn't have gained anything from this had I not defaulted...this was simply money out of my pocket that would have gone into the bankers' pockets to make them richer. They are simply losing their profit. Why is it considered my income if what the creditor did was simply cut their profit, and agreed to settle for an amount that they could break even on? I mean, if that were the case, then we would have to pay tax on every item we buy that is on sale, right? It is basically the same idea....a store didn't sell all of their summer clothes, and it is now winter. So, to try to at least break even, they put it on sale, and cut their profit. Same thing, right? I don't have to claim on my taxes that I bought $200 worth of clothes for $75?
So why is it my income when the banks basically do the same thing? They can't get the debt paid with all of their junk added to it, so they decide to take a cut in profit to break even, but you pay the taxes on it? The only think I can figure is to counter act that fact that the debt in it's entirety is considered an "asset" to the company. If you owe a bank $5,109 in principle, fees and interest, the bank puts that entire $5,109 on the plus side of their assets. If the account is charged off, the creditor gets a tax break on that...see we are basically covering that tax break.
Of course, I have a problem with this as well. Say I bought my house for $100,000, and sold it a couple of years later for $75,000. Now, I would get a tax break for the $25,000 loss. However, does the buyer have to pay additional tax because of that? No!
So why do we have to pay taxes on the creditors' losses of profit, if we at least pay back an amount equal to what we borrowed in the first place?