Allyson Christina Briggs - Page 14

                                       - 13 -                                         
          earned some income from his or her own efforts should not be hit            
          so hard by the new anti-abuse rule.                                         
               We note that respondent does not suggest that petitioner               
          divided a unitary activity into an employment and a self-                   
          employment in order to “game the system”.  We note that                     
          respondent does not suggest that any part of petitioner’s $4,275            
          W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, income was really a gift, or for any           
          other reason was not properly part of petitioner’s “earned                  
          income” under section 63(c)(5)(B).  Instead, it appears that in             
          1999 petitioner had two income-earning activities, one of which             
          did not produce a profit that year.  In the absence of any                  
          indication of impropriety on the part of petitioner or her                  
          parents, we conclude that we are not required to interpret the              
          term earned income as though (1) the Congress had not intended to           
          change the law when it changed the statutory language or (2) the            
          Congress had intended to change the law to the section 32 model             
          even though the Congress did not use the section 32 language or             
          even indicate in the legislative history that section 32 was to             
          be the model for section 63.  Under the circumstances, we                   
          conclude that the Congress’s purposes are better served by                  
          agreeing with petitioner’s conclusion in the setting of the                 
          instant case.                                                               
               We hold that petitioner’s self-employment loss does not                
          reduce her earned income for purposes of section 63 and on the              

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011