- 14 -
section 107 exclusion, than a minister without additional income.
We are aware of no authority to justify our consideration of this
point in construing section 107(2).6
E. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the exclusion from
gross income for a designated parsonage allowance is not limited
to the lesser of the fair market rental value of the home or the
amount used to provide a home.
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered
under Rule 155.
Reviewed by the Court.
CHABOT, PARR, WELLS, WHALEN, HALPERN, BEGHE, CHIECHI, LARO,
FOLEY, VASQUEZ, GALE, THORNTON, and MARVEL, JJ., agree with this
majority opinion.
6 The dissent asserts that the majority is sanctioning
abuse and that this case is an archetypical example of abuse.
We recognize that the fact that petitioner has income from a
Schedule C activity enables him to spend more for housing. The
same financial flexibility would be available to a minister who
has investment income or who is married to a spouse that earns a
separate income. Despite the dissent’s concerns, there are no
special limits in sec. 107(2) providing for those situations.
Concern over those issues does not, contrary to the urging of the
dissent, justify our adding a fair rental value limit to sec.
107(2).
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