- 4 -
(ii) does not live apart from his spouse
at all times during the taxable year.
Petitioners do not contend that under the literal language
of section 86 respondent’s determination is incorrect. Instead,
petitioners argue that section 86 is inequitable in that it
treats persons not married and living together or persons married
and living apart with preference to those individuals who are
married and living together. Petitioners argue that they should
be entitled to double the section 86 base amount of $25,000 for
single individuals as opposed to the $32,000 base amount for
married couples filing jointly.
As we noted in Everage v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-373,
Petitioner’s chagrin and frustration may be understandable.
Nonetheless, we must apply the statutes as Congress wrote
them and we do not have the power to rewrite section 86 to
avoid this anomaly. See Huntsberry v. Commissioner, 83 T.C.
742, 747-748 (1984).
The taxpayers in Roberts v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-172,
also questioned the fairness of section 86. In Roberts, we noted
that
this is not the proper forum to question the policy
considerations that impelled the enactment of this
legislation. * * * The legislative history of section 86,
as enacted in 1983, demonstrates that Congress had a valid
and rational basis for the distinctions made in the
statute[.]
****** *
We recognize that “‘No scheme of taxation, whether the
tax is imposed on property, income, or purchases of goods
and services, has yet been devised which is free of all
discriminatory impact.’” Druker v. Commissioner, 77 T.C.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011