- 6 -
income from activities as a performing artist”. We assume that
Congress intends a different meaning when it uses different
language. United States v. Gonzales, 520 U.S. 1, 5 (1997);
Iraola & CIA, S.A. v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 232 F.3d 854, 859
(11th Cir. 2000); Francisco v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 317, 323
(2002), affd. 370 F.3d 1228 (D.C. Cir. 2004).
Petitioner contends that respondent is estopped from
contending that petitioner is not a qualified performing artist
for 2000 because respondent determined that petitioner was a
qualified performing artist in 1999. We disagree. The
Commissioner is not bound in any year to allow a deduction
permitted for another year. See Lerch v. Commissioner, 877 F.2d
624, 627 n.6 (7th Cir. 1989), affg. T.C. Memo. 1987-295; Hawkins
v. Commissioner, 713 F.2d 347, 351-352 (8th Cir. 1983), affg.
T.C. Memo. 1982-451.
For purposes of section 62(b)(1)(C), adjusted gross income
means a taxpayer’s adjusted gross income from all sources.
Petitioner’s adjusted gross income exceeded $16,000 in 2000.
Thus, petitioner was not a qualified performing artist under
section 62(b)(1) and may not deduct from gross income his
employee business expenses incurred as a performing artist.
B. Whether Application of Section 62(b)(1) Violates
Petitioner’s Constitutional Rights of Due Process
Petitioner argues that the $16,000 ceiling in section
62(b)(1) unconstitutionally discriminates against performing
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011