YOUNG v. COMMISSIONER

2005 T.C. Summary Opinion 76, 2005 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 186
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedJune 7, 2005
DocketNo. 18021-02S
StatusUnpublished

This text of 2005 T.C. Summary Opinion 76 (YOUNG v. COMMISSIONER) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Tax Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
YOUNG v. COMMISSIONER, 2005 T.C. Summary Opinion 76, 2005 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 186 (tax 2005).

Opinion

JOHNNY J. AND BRENDA D. YOUNG, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
YOUNG v. COMMISSIONER
No. 18021-02S
United States Tax Court
T.C. Summary Opinion 2005-76; 2005 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 186;
June 7, 2005, Filed

*186 PURSUANT TO INTERNAL REVENUE CODE SECTION 7463(b), THIS OPINION MAY NOT BE TREATED AS PRECEDENT FOR ANY OTHER CASE.

Johnny J. and Brenda D. Young, Pro sese.
David R. Jojola, for respondent.
Dean, John F.

JOHN F. DEAN

DEAN, Special Trial Judge: This case was heard pursuant to the provisions of section 7463. Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. The decision to be entered is not reviewable by any other court, and this opinion should not be cited as authority.

Respondent determined a deficiency of $ 13,363 in petitioners' Federal income tax for 2000 and an accuracy-related penalty under section 6662 of $ 2,672.60. Petitioners concede that Johnny J. Young (petitioner) received wages of $ 36,000, and self-employment income of $ 21,438. Respondent concedes that petitioners have substantiated that the following $ 24,982 of expenses were paid in the exercise of petitioner's ministry: (a) Automobile expenses of $ 7,000, (b) books of $ 3,000, (c) advertising of $ 377, (d) office expenses of $ 5,000, and (e) trips of*187 $ 9,605. Respondent concedes that petitioners are entitled to deductions for mortgage interest of $ 50,825 and charitable contributions of $ 22,587. Respondent also concedes that petitioners are not liable for the accuracy-related penalty under section 6662. The issues remaining for decision are whether petitioners: (a) Must allocate expenses incurred in the exercise of petitioner's ministry between exempt and nonexempt income, and (b) have additional income subject to self-employment tax.

Background

Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. The stipulation of facts and the exhibits received in evidence are incorporated herein by reference. At the time the petition was filed, petitioners resided in Los Angeles, California.

Petitioner was ordained as a minister by the Church of God Pentecostal, Inc. (Church) on August 14, 1981. Petitioner filed returns reporting net earnings from self-employment from his ministry in the years 1992 through 1999 averaging more than $ 2,400 a year.

As senior pastor of the Church in Inglewood, California, petitioner was paid a salary of $ 78,000 of which the Church designated $ 42,000 as a parsonage allowance and $ 36,000 as wages. In*188 addition to the salary received from the Church, petitioner received self-employment income of $ 21,438 in the exercise of his ministry. During the audit of petitioners' return for 2000, petitioner applied for and was denied an exemption from self-employment tax.

Discussion

Because there are no factual matters in dispute in this case, section 7491 is inapplicable.

Allocation of Expenses

Section 107 provides that for a minister of the Gospel, the rental value or rental allowance used to provide a home is excluded from gross income when it is part of compensation. Petitioner received such a parsonage allowance for the taxable year at issue, and respondent agrees that the parsonage allowance is properly excludable under section 107.

Respondent argues, however, that some of the expenses claimed as ministry expenses are allocable to petitioner's tax-exempt parsonage allowance and are therefore nondeductible. Petitioners' position is that the Court should not deny deduction of petitioner's business-related ministry expenses simply because he received a tax-exempt parsonage allowance.

Section 265 provides:

SEC. 265(a). General Rule.--No deduction shall be allowed for-- *189

(1) Expenses.--Any amount otherwise allowable as a deduction which is allocable to one or more classes of income other than interest (whether or not any amount of income of that class or classes is received or accrued) wholly exempt from the taxes imposed by this subtitle, or any amount otherwise allowable under section 212 (relating to expenses for production of income) which is allocable to interest (whether or not any amount of such interest is received or accrued) wholly exempt from the taxes imposed by this subtitle.

Tax-exempt income is defined as "any class of income * * * wholly exempt from the taxes imposed by subtitle A of the Code." Sec. 1.265-1(b), Income Tax Regs. The result is that expenses allocable to tax-exempt income are nondeductible. McFarland v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-440.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Deason v. Commissioner
41 T.C. 465 (U.S. Tax Court, 1964)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2005 T.C. Summary Opinion 76, 2005 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 186, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/young-v-commissioner-tax-2005.