- 12 -
1987. See id. We hold that section 469 is not retroactive.5
We next address petitioner’s argument that the transitional
rule that Congress provided in enacting section 469 into the Code
violates his equal protection rights under the Due Process
Clause. We first describe the transitional rule that Congress
provided, TRA 1986 sec. 502, 100 Stat. 2241, when it enacted
section 469 into the Code. That transitional rule provides that
any loss sustained by certain investors6 with respect to inter-
5See Polone v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-339, affd. 479
F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 2007); cf. United States v. Carlton, 512 U.S.
26, 33-34 (1994).
6The investors qualifying under the transitional rule are
so-called qualified investors. The term “qualified investor” is
defined to mean, in general:
any natural person who holds (directly or through 1 or
more entities) an interest in a qualified low-income
housing project--
(A) if–-
(i) in the case of a project placed in ser-
vice before August 16, 1986, such person held an
interest in such project on August 16, 1986, and
the taxpayer made his initial investment after
December 31, 1983, or
(ii) in the case of a project not described
in subparagraph (A), such investor held an inter-
est in such project on December 31, 1986, and
(B) if such investor is required to make payments
after December 31, 1986, of 50 percent or more of the
total original obligated investment for such interest.
TRA 1986 sec. 502(d), 100 Stat. 2242.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007