- 10 -
1984.4 According to petitioner, “Based on the tax incentives in
place at that time, Petitioner reasonably expected that he would
be allowed to deduct tax losses from the Partnership” and “would
not have made the investment if he knew that the losses from the
project could not be offset against his compensation and portfo-
lio income, since in that case, there would be no economic return
from the investment.” Petitioner maintains that he was “induced
to make an investment based upon the prior set of tax rules
deliberately enacted by Congress to induce such investment.”
From those premises, petitioner argues that section 469 is
retroactive and that such retroactivity is unconstitutional
because it violates the Due Process Clause.
Before considering petitioner’s argument that section 469 is
unconstitutionally retroactive, we note that the grounds on which
petitioner relies to support that argument are similar to the
grounds on which the taxpayer relied in United States v. Carlton,
512 U.S. 26 (1994), to support his argument that the tax statute
involved there was unconstitutionally retroactive. In Carlton,
the taxpayer, the executor of an estate, maintained that the
retroactive amendment of a Federal estate tax provision (section
4With respect to petitioner’s contention that he made his
investment in Aldus Green in 1984, respondent states on brief:
“We note that petitioner offered no evidence that his investment
in AGC [Aldus Green] actually was made two years before the
enactment of sec. 469, nor was the date of his investment in AGC
contained in the Stipulation of Facts filed in this case.”
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007