- 19 -
provide the relief he requests. "The proper place for a
consideration of petitioner's complaint is the Halls of Congress,
not here [Tax Court]." Hays Corp. v. Commissioner, 40 T.C. 436,
443 (1963), affd. 331 F.2d 422 (7th Cir. 1964).
In addition, petitioners argue that taxpayers are unfairly
treated when the value of their home increases because of
inflation. They contend that
The $40,140 of alleged gain is fictitious, for
the IRS gain computation assumes that the
taxpayers' 1987 purchase dollars are
equivalent to 1993 sale dollars. If
equivalent dollars are used to compute gain
here, the $40,140 "gain" becomes a loss of
$8,397. An income tax may not be imposed on a
loss without violating IRC � 61 and the Due
Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Other taxpayers have raised the argument of inflation as
grounds for failing to report income. We have consistently
rejected this argument. See Hellermann v. Commissioner, 77 T.C.
1361 (1981); Milkowski v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1981-225;
Downing v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1983-97. The taxpayers in
Hellermann made arguments similar to those advanced by petitioners:
That gain from the sale of their buildings was due to inflation;
that their gain was nominal; and that the portion of their nominal
gain that was due to inflation does not constitute taxable income.
77 T.C. at 1362-1363. The taxpayers therein also used the Consumer
Price Index to illustrate the effects of inflation and what was
alleged to be their nominal gain. Id. at 1362. Responding to that
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011