Richard D. Warren and Elizabeth K. - Page 17




                                       - 17 -                                         
          creates a bright-line rule, subject to manipulation by                      
          designating all but a pittance of the minister’s salary as a                
          rental allowance, a straw man constructed by the majority and               
          therefore easily demolished.  Nonetheless, I believe that the               
          words evidence the manner in which Congress envisaged that the              
          statute would typically operate.  If rental value limits the                
          section 107(2) exclusion, it follows that a rental allowance                
          would in the usual case generally constitute only part of a                 
          minister’s compensation.                                                    
               Moreover, legislative history states unambiguously that                
          concerns of fairness and removing discrimination between                    
          ministers furnished a home and those provided proportionally                
          larger salaries instigated the development of section 107(2).               
          See S. Rept. 1622, 83d Cong., 2d Sess. 16 (1954); H. Rept. 1337,            
          83d Cong., 2d Sess. 15 (1954).  This Court, too, has opined:                
               Plainly, the purpose of the new provision was to                       
               equalize the situation between those ministers who                     
               received a house rent free and those who were given an                 
               allowance that was actually used to provide a home.                    
               There certainly does not appear to be any intention to                 
               place ministers of the second category in a favored                    
               position.  * * *  [Marine v. Commissioner, 47 T.C. 609,                
               613 (1967).]                                                           

          Nothing about the majority’s open-handed generosity to the                  
          favored few, exemplified by petitioners in the instant case, is             
          consistent with this wise pronouncement.                                    
               Although the majority points to a rental value limitation as           
          placing a compliance burden on ministers or churches utilizing              




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