IRC 107 challenged by FFRF!

When employers provide housing for their employees -- often furnished apartments -- is the value of the rental taxable income to the employees? And when companies put their employees up in hotels for a few days, is the amount taxable income to the employees? The answer must be buried somewhere in section 132 but I can't find it.

Seems the amount lost is 2.3B over 5 years

's a few pennies in our government, though I guess it's theprinciple that they're after. Searching led me to the "Clergy Housing Allowance Clarification Act of

2002", though I don't see how the additional text added to section 107 ("and to the extent such allowance does not exceed the fair rental value of the home, including furnishings and appurtenances such as a garage, plus the cost of utilities") allowed the court to say the following:

1. After oral argument, we appointed Prof. Chemerinsky as amicus.1 We requested supplemental briefing from the parties and amici on whether we should consider the constitutionality of § 107(2) and, if so, whether Rev. Warren's claimed exclusion violates the Establishment Clause because it provides a tax benefit available only to "ministers of the gospel." See Warren v. Commissioner, 282 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir.

2002). On May 20, 2002, the President signed into law the Clergy Housing Allowance Clarification Act of 2002, Pub.L. No. 107-181, 116 Stat. 583, which resolved the question of statutory interpretation raised by the parties. Its sponsors explained that this bill was designed to prevent this Court from reaching the constitutionality of § 107(2).

Seems the IRS thought that his housing allowance of 80k a year was excessive, and the "Clergy Housing Allowance Clarification Act of

2002" makes it no longer excessive. How is this?

Finally, what is the FFRF using this time to challenge section 107?

If it's for the benefit of the employer, no; for the benefit of the employee, yes.

Same, but probably not taxable.

Seth

Here's the link to the now posted FFRF news release and link to their complaint:

FFRF News Release:

FFRF Complaint Page:

(Note: This pdf file says it was filed Oct. 14, but it was actually filed Oct. 16).

Sincerely, Robert Baty

If you review paragraphs #35 & #49 of the complaint, you will note implicit references to what I have previously tried to discuss here...Revenue Ruling 70-549.

I am hopeful that with the FFRF suit, the facts behind 70-549 (e.g., how Bush & Burleson got the IRS, during those Nixon years, to compromise the law in issuing the ruling so "basketball ministers" at places like Pepperdine could claim the benefit) and its exploitation over the last

40 years will be a part of the popular, public debate over the merits of the suit and the future of IRC 107.

If IRC 107 survives the suit, perhaps the public awareness of its many and varied problems (e.g., being unlimited) will result in Congress at least taking action to curb what many, if not most, would consider abuses.

Sincerely, Robert Baty