- 5 -
loss for each of the years at issue violates the Due Process
Clause of the Fifth Amendment (Due Process Clause) to the United
States Constitution (Constitution) and that therefore he should
be allowed to offset each such loss against his income from
sources other than passive activities for each such year. (We
shall refer to income from sources other than passive activities
as other income.)
In support of his position under the Due Process Clause,
petitioner argues that section 469 is retroactive and that the
retroactive application of section 469 to petitioner’s claimed
Aldus Green loss for each of the years at issue is unconstitu-
tional. In further support of his position, petitioner argues
that the transitional rule that Congress provided in enacting
section 469 into the Code (transitional rule) violates his equal
protection rights under the Due Process Clause because it treats
him differently than certain other taxpayers.
The Due Process Clause provides that “No person shall be
* * * deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process
of law”. The Due Process Clause provides protection against
Federal discriminatory action “so unjustifiable as to be
violative of due process”. Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618,
642 (1969); see Nicholas v. Tucker, 114 F.3d 17, 19 (2d Cir.
1997). The Due Process Clause also has been held to incorporate
the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007