- 4 -
his Social Security benefits, we do not have the authority to
disregard the express provisions of a statute enacted by Congress
even where the result in a particular case may seem harsh. See,
e.g., Everage v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-373.
In essence, petitioner questions the fairness of section 86.
However, this is not the proper forum to question the policy
considerations that impelled the enactment of this legislation.
“Normally, a legislative classification will not be set aside if
any state of facts rationally justifying it is demonstrated to or
perceived by the courts.” United States v. Maryland Savings-
Share Ins. Corp., 400 U.S. 4, 6 (1970). The legislative history
of section 86, as enacted by the Social Security Amendments of
1983, Pub. L. 98-21, sec. 121(a), 97 Stat. 80, demonstrates that
Congress had a valid and rational basis for establishing a base
amount of zero for married taxpayers who lived with their spouse
for any part of the taxable year and file separate returns:
The base amount is * * * zero in the case of a
married individual filing a separate return, unless he
or she lived apart from his or her spouse for the
entire taxable year; * * *
The base amount is zero for married individuals
filing separate returns because the committee believes
that the family should be treated as an integral unit
in determining the amount of social security benefit
that is includible in gross income under this
provision. If the base amount for these individuals
were higher, couples who are otherwise subject to tax
on their benefits and whose incomes are relatively
equally divided would be able to reduce substantially
the amount of benefits subject to tax by filing
separate returns. [S. Rept. 98-23, at 27 (1983), 1983-
2 C.B. 326, 328.]
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011