- 13 -
The $22,500 monetary limitation may also be exceeded on a case-
by-case basis for good cause. See 42 U.S.C. sec. 4626(a).
Hence, we are faced with a statute which by its terms
exempts from taxation “payment received under this subchapter”
and which is contained in a subchapter that explicitly authorizes
three types or categories of payment. It is therefore reasonable
to infer that a “payment received under this subchapter” is one
of the types of payment that the subchapter enables a displaced
person to receive. Yet it is not this subchapter but rather
independent constitutional mandates that enable one whose private
property is taken for public use to receive just compensation.
Moreover, the language employed in the provision dealing
with replacement housing assistance for homeowners states that
the displaced homeowner’s entitlement is to “The amount, if any,
which when added to the acquisition cost of the dwelling acquired
by the displacing agency, equals the reasonable cost of a
comparable replacement dwelling.” 42 U.S.C. sec. 4623(a)(1)(A).
Nowhere, however, does the statute elaborate upon this concept of
acquisition cost or specify how it is to be calculated. Since in
the context in which the law was written, the cost to a
governmental entity of acquiring private property was just
compensation or fair market value, we must assume that
acquisition cost as used in the Relocation Act denotes this
constitutionally required just compensation. Therefore, because
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011