- 11 -
357, 363-364 (1987); Huntsberry v. Commissioner, 83 T.C. 742,
747-748 (1984). Congress chose not to include the “rental value”
limit in section 107(2). We do not read section 107(2) to
provide otherwise.
D. Unequal Treatment Theory
Respondent contends that respondent’s position prevents
unequal treatment between ministers for whom housing is provided
and excluded under section 107(1) on one hand, and ministers who
receive a rental allowance excluded under section 107(2) on the
other. Respondent relies on legislative history accompanying
enactment of section 107(2) in 1954. In explaining why section
107(2) was added in 1954, the tax-writing committees explained
that the then-existing law, i.e., what is now section 107(1)5–-
is unfair to those ministers who are not furnished a
parsonage, but who receive larger salaries (which are
taxable) to compensate them for expenses they incur in
supplying their own home. * * * [The new provision]
has removed the discrimination in existing law by
providing that the present exclusion is to apply to
rental allowances paid to ministers to the extent used
by them to rent or provide a home.
H. Rept. 1337, to accompany H.R. 8300 (Pub. L. 591), 83d Cong.,
2d Sess. 15 (1954); S. Rept. 1622, to accompany H.R. 8300 (Pub.
5 In Reed v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. 203, 213 (1984), we
noted that the predecessors of sec. 107(1) date back to 1921.
See sec. 213(b)(11) of the Revenue Act of 1921, ch. 136, 42 Stat.
227, 239; sec. 22(b)(8) of the Revenue Act of 1928, ch. 852, 45
Stat. 791, 798; sec. 22(b)(6) of the Revenue Act of 1932, ch.
209, 47 Stat. 169, 179; sec. 22(b)(6), I.R.C. 1939, 53 Stat. 1,
10.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011