Eldon R. Kenseth and Susan M. Kenseth - Page 54




                                        - 54 -                                          
         whether the Tax Court can and should apportion the respective                  
         gross incomes of client and attorney pursuant to a contingent fee              
         agreement under which the client gives up substantial control                  
         over the prosecution and recovery of his claim.                                
              3. Another Reason for Reexamination:  Repeal of Statutory                 
         Spreadback and Averaging Provisions                                            
              The history of the statutory spreadback provisions is                     
         instructive in another respect.27  In 1964, those provisions were              
         repealed in favor of general income averaging.28  In 1970,                     
         Congress enacted the 50-percent maximum tax on earned income,                  
         which was in turn repealed in 1981, when the top income tax rate               





               27 Under the 1954 Code, taxpayers were afforded six targeted             
          spreadback (or averaging) provisions that were intended to                    
          mitigate the harsh effects of progressive tax rates on income                 
          earned unevenly over the years.  See secs. 1301-1307 (1954 Code).             
          These relief provisions applied only to particular types of                   
          income (e.g., employment compensation, back pay, breach of                    
          contract damages, income from inventions or artwork, antitrust                
          damages) earned or received over specified periods of time.                   
               28 Congress amended the targeted averaging provisions in the             
          Revenue Act of 1964, stating that “A general averaging provision              
          is needed to accord those whose incomes fluctuate widely from                 
          year to year the same treatment accorded those with relatively                
          stable incomes.”  S. Rept. 830, 88th Cong., 2d Sess. (1964),                  
          1964-1 C.B. (Part 2) 505, 643, 644.  Congress explained that the              
          former targeted averaging provisions were inadequate because they             
          were (1) limited to a relatively small proportion of situations               
          and (2) unduly complicated.  See id. at 644.  Accordingly,                    
          Revenue Act of 1964, Pub. L. 88-272, sec. 232(a), 78 Stat. 19,                
          105 replaced the old provisions (subject to transitional relief)              
          with an averaging device that was available to individual                     
          taxpayers generally, regardless of the source of income.  See id.             





Page:  Previous  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  61  62  63  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011