Richard D. Warren and Elizabeth K. - Page 18




                                       - 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