- 7 -
that home office are not deductible under section 280A(c)(1).
Respondent is sustained on this issue.
Petitioners next contend that such an interpretation of
section 280A(c)(1) is unconstitutional. Petitioner argues that
it is irrational not to allow the matching of costs against
revenues as it not only deviates from generally accepted
accounting principles but it also requires taxpayers to pay taxes
on gross income with no benefit of the deduction for the expenses
incurred to produce that income. Such a result, petitioners
contend, violates due process principles.
To the extent that petitioners' claim is based on the
Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, this Court has
held that the Fourteenth Amendment does not apply to Federal tax
statutes. Labay v. Commissioner, 55 T.C. 6, 14 (1970), affd. per
curiam 450 F.2d 280 (1971). Thus, the Equal Protection and Due
Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment do not operate as a
limitation on the taxing power of the Federal government.
Hamilton v. Commissioner, 68 T.C. 603, 606 (1977).
In general, a Federal tax law is not violative of the Due
Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
unless the statute classifies taxpayers in a manner that is
arbitrary and capricious. Hamilton v. Commissioner, supra at
606; Shaffer v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-618. Here,
petitioners have not shown that section 280A(c)(1) classifies
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011