Driscoll seeking Supreme Court review!

[Paths of the Sea]

I just found out. Maybe y'all missed it as well!

-------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.ecfa.org/Content/Driscoll-As ... Housing-Al\
lowance-Case

Driscoll Asks U.S. Supreme Court to Review Housing Allowance Case

August 13, 2012

Phil Driscoll has asked the U.S. Supreme court to review his housing allowance
case. Earlier a three-judge panel of the federal Eleventh Circuit Court of
Appeals in Atlanta overturned a U.S. Tax Court decision allowing clergy members
to claim a tax exclusion for more than one home.

The ruling reversed the Tax Court's decision in Driscoll v. Commissioner, which
was made final in March 2011.

The taxpayers in the case were Phil Driscoll and his wife, Lynne. Mr. Driscoll,
who is an ordained minister as well as a Grammy-award-winning trumpeter, heads
Mighty Horn Ministries, a nonprofit based in Greensboro, Ga., that had total
income of more than $6 million from 2005 to 2009.

At issue in the case were more than $400,000 of tax exclusions the Driscolls
took over a period of four years for a lakefront second home near their first
home in Cleveland, Tenn.

The ministry provided the second home to the couple under the "housing
allowance" of the tax code, often known as the "parsonage allowance."

This provision allows ordained clergy either to live tax-free in a home provided
by a religious organization or to receive a tax-free annual payment to buy or
rent a home as part of approved "reasonable compensation."

Driscoll's position is that the Tax Court erred when it concluded that the word
"home" in Code Sec. 107 included both singular and plural forms of the word
because the statutory context did not support the Dictionary Act's, 1 U.S.C. §1,
singular-to-plural provision.

The taxpayers' argument that, if Congress had intended to limit the income
exclusion under Code Sec. 107(2) to the minister's principal residence, it could
have added language to that effect was rejected.

The consistent use of the singular in the legislative history of Code Sec. 107
demonstrated that Congress intended for the parsonage allowance exclusion to
apply to only one home.

Source: Federal Tax Day, August 8, 2012

---------------------------------------
---------------------------------------

[Paths of the Sea]

Peter J. Reilly at Forbes continues to be one of the rare outlets where the IRC 107 issue is being given some coverage; at least from what I notice.

Peter has now added a column on the Phil Driscoll Supreme Court petition:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreill ... cond-home/

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

[LPC]

Cert. denied. Philip A. Driscoll, et ux., Petitioners v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, No. 12-153 (10/1/2012).

Also, the 11th Circuit decision now has an official citation, which is 669 F.3d 1309 (11th Cir. 2012).

[Paths of the Sea]

Cert. denied.

Philip A. Driscoll, et ux., Petitioners v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,
No. 12-153 (10/1/2012).

Also, the 11th Circuit decision now has an official citation, which is
669 F.3d 1309 (11th Cir. 2012).

Thanks for getting that out so quick.

If I understand the nature of things, "ministers" outside the 11th Circuit can continue claiming the benefit on multiple houses, with a chance of success since the Tax Court allowed it.

Is that right?

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

[jkeeb]

Correct. The 11th Circuit decision only affects those in the territory the 11th covers. However, it will give IRS ammo to use in any other circuit. I'm not sure there are many, if any, other objects for prosecution.

[Paths of the Sea]

Correct.

The 11th Circuit decision only affects those in the territory the 11th covers.

However, it will give IRS ammo to use in any other circuit.
I'm not sure there are many, if any, other objects for prosecution.

I've read where there are a quite a number of "ministers" with more than one house; though many of them may not rise to the level of the million dollar benefits Driscoll was claiming over the years.

It will be interesting to see if the IRS goes after others in other circuits, as well as the 11th; if they can figure out how to figure out which ones are claiming more than one house. Maybe a "snitch" will come forward with the information and claim a reward.

Hopefully, the FFRF IRC 107 Challenge will have a ruling on the Constitutional issue behind IRC 107 before another multiple house case gets to the Appeals Court and it will moot the multiple house issue.

Jill Stein, Green Party Presidential Candidate, indicated recently that she would consider IRC 107 as UNconstitutional. Maybe the major party candidates will address that issue in their public chat tomorrow in Denver. I can only hope....perhaps in vain!

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

[Famspear]

Here's an article on section 107:

Justin Butterfield, Hiram Sasser & Reed Smith, The Parsonage Exemption Deserves Broad Protection, 16 Tex. Rev. L. & Pol. 251 (2012):

http://www.trolp.org/main_pgs/issues/v1 ... rfield.pdf

[Paths of the Sea]

Here's an article on section 107:

Justin Butterfield, Hiram Sasser & Reed Smith,
The Parsonage Exemption Deserves Broad Protection,
16 Tex. Rev. L. & Pol. 251 (2012):

http://www.trolp.org/main_pgs/issues/v1 ... rfield.pdf

I noticed that article recently and the association a couple of the authors have with the Liberty Institute. It may be that we could see them and their Institute involved in the FFRF IRC 107 Challenge case or in lobbying efforts to try and salvage what good they might see in IRC 107.

The conclusion of that article notes:

> VI. CONCLUSION
>
> The parsonage exemption is the culmination of a legal
> tradition beginning thousands of years ago and woven
> into the fabric of American society from the beginning.
>
> It is a recognition that clergy bring some good to the
> world, and it is a restraint on the government's
> intrusion into the matters of the church. It is
> also, in its ideal form, a means of bringing equality
> between different denominations where before there was
> "unintentionally" denominational favoritism in the tax code.
>
> Unfortunately, the parsonage exemption is tainted by the
> Treasury regulations that apply it.
>
> However, with the Supreme Court's decision in Hosanna-Tabor,
> the aspects of the parsonage exemption that remain problematic
> should be overturned, leaving an exemption that promotes
> greater religious equality.
>
> While the Eleventh Circuit' decision in Driscoll is a
> setback, the parsonage exemption is an important component
> in ensuring the fairness of the tax code and in avoiding
> the sort of Establishment Clause problems that so concern
> its detractors.

"Tainted"???

I think it is tainted with a violation of the 1st Amendment Establishment Clause.
We'll see how that argument turns out in the FFRF case; I hope!

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast