Stephen S. Ziegler - Page 10

                                       - 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