- 18 -
section 107(2), I do not feel that requiring a valuation or
appraisal is unduly burdensome in light of the significant tax
benefit obtained in return, but unavailable to all nonclerical
taxpayers. Such a prerequisite is hardly unusual in tax law.
Nor do I believe that it affords sufficient reason to ignore
Congress’ expressed intent to strive toward fairness.
Lastly, I note that a rental value limitation is not
inconsistent with the language from our opinion in Reed v.
Commissioner, 82 T.C. 208, 213 (1984), quoted by the majority,
which stresses that “Congress clearly provided a different
measure for the exclusion under section 107(2) than the measure
provided under section 107(1).” A minister seeking treatment
under section 107(2) is subject to the distinct requirement that
the funds excluded actually be used to provide a home, regardless
of whether an additional rental value limit is imposed. Only by
imposing such a limit, however, can all terms of the statutory
text, as well as the intentions expressed in legislative history,
be given meaning and effect.
Therefore, I would hold that the exclusion from gross income
for a designated parsonage allowance under section 107(2) is
limited to the lesser of the fair rental value of the home or the
amount used to provide a home.
COHEN and RUWE, JJ., agree with this dissenting opinion.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Last modified: May 25, 2011