- 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