Jack A. Fleischli, a.k.a. Jack Forbes - Page 6

                                        - 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