- 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