The Eleventh Circuit, in the case of Gregory v. Commissioner, Case No. 22-10707[1], held that expenses associated with an activity not pursued with the intent of generating a profit, as defined under IRC §183, fall into the category of miscellaneous itemized deductions under IRC §67. Consequently, these deductions are subject to the limitations imposed on claiming such deductions.

“Hobby Loss” Rules in the IRC

IRC §183(a)-(b) states:

(a) General rule. In the case of an activity engaged in by an individual or an S corporation, if such activity is not engaged in for profit, no deduction attributable to such activity shall be allowed under this chapter except as provided in this section.

(b) Deductions allowable. In the case of an activity not engaged in for profit to which subsection (a) applies, there shall be allowed—

(1) the deductions which would be allowable under this chapter for the taxable year without regard to whether or not such activity is engaged in for profit, and

(2) a deduction equal to the amount of the deductions which would be allowable under this chapter for the taxable year only if such activity were engaged in for profit, but only to the extent that the gross income derived from such activity for the taxable year exceeds the deductions allowable by reason of paragraph (1).

While the provision establishes the limitation on deductions for expenses associated with such an activity, the subsections do not specify whether these deductions should be factored into the computation of adjusted gross income or treated as itemized deductions on an individual tax return.

As emphasized in the panel’s opinion:

Everyone agrees that Section 183(b)(2) allows a deduction for a certain amount of hobby losses, which is capped at the hobby's gross income. But we must decide where those deductions belong on a taxpayer's return: above the line (reducing gross income) or below the line as miscellaneous itemized deductions (reducing adjusted gross income).[2]

The Facts of the Case

At this point in the case, the taxpayer does not dispute that their activity falls under the purview of IRC §183. Consequently, the facts of the case, as presented in the opinion, are not in dispute.

Carl and Leila Gregory chartered their yacht, Lady Leila, in 2014 and 2015. They did not conduct the chartering activity for profit — it was a hobby. Though the hobby generated income, it also incurred sizeable expenses each year. The Gregorys deducted some of those expenses under Section 183(b)(2) and placed them “above the line” to reduce their gross income. After an audit, the Commissioner determined that the Section 183(b)(2) deductions were miscellaneous itemized deductions under Section 67, meaning that they belonged “below the line” and reduced adjusted gross income, not gross income. Moreover, because the Gregorys had earned tens of millions of dollars in 2014 and 2015 and, at that time, the Code allowed miscellaneous itemized deductions only to the extent that they exceeded two percent of adjusted gross income, the Commissioner disallowed the Section 183(b)(2) deductions altogether. Facing deficiencies and penalties, the Gregorys petitioned the Tax Court, which granted summary judgment for the Commissioner. They now seek appellate review.[3]

As highlighted in the opinion, the taxpayer's circumstances are significantly affected by the allocation of this deduction, underscoring the relevance of the relevant law for the tax year currently under review by the Court.

This treatment matters for many reasons, including because taxpayers (during the relevant time) could deduct miscellaneous itemized deductions only for amounts that exceeded two percent of their adjusted gross income.[4]

In the years subsequent to the enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the outcomes have become considerably more unfavorable. The Act introduced IRC §67(g), which states, “[n]otwithstanding subsection (a), no miscellaneous itemized deduction shall be allowed for any taxable year beginning after December 31, 2017, and before January 1, 2026.”

This means that for tax years through 2025, taxpayers would not be able to utilize any deductions to offset §183 income if the deductions authorized by IRC §183(b) are appropriately classified as miscellaneous itemized deductions.

The IRC Scheme for Classifying Deductions on an Individual Return

Any endeavor to tackle this issue necessitates a fundamental comprehension of the structure delineated in the Internal Revenue Code for classifying deductions on a Form 1040. The Court’s elucidation of this framework serves as crucial background knowledge to determine the accurate classification of the §183(b) deductions.

Before discussing the parties’ arguments, we explain the statutory scheme for above-and below-the-line income tax deductions. To be clear, our background discussion of the relevant statutory scheme is meant to give context to the parties’ specific arguments. The Code has a byzantine character, and exceptions to the following generalizations may apply in certain circumstances.[5]

The discussion commences by providing an explanation of how the IRC differentiates deductions into two distinct groups: deductions used in the calculation of adjusted gross income (referred to as “above the line” deductions) and deductions treated as itemized deductions, which are reported on Schedule A if a taxpayer opts to itemize deductions.

Income tax deductions reduce taxes owed by reducing the overall amount of income that is subject to a tax. The Code distinguishes — albeit not explicitly — two principal classes of deductions: above-the-line and below-the-line. Above-the-line deductions reduce gross income, that is, “all income from whatever source derived,” and are enumerated in Section 62(a). I.R.C. §§61(a), 62(a). Gross income minus above-the-line deductions equals adjusted gross income. Id. §62. After calculating adjusted gross income, taxpayers can invoke another round of deductions to lower adjusted gross income. See id. §63(a). These deductions are commonly described as “below-the-line” because they occur after applying the Section 62 deductions to gross income. See Cole v. Comm’r, No. 14402-11S, 2013 WL 1798975, at *4 n.4 (T.C. Apr. 29, 2013) (describing “below-the-line” deductions as “including itemized deductions and” the deductions listed in Section 63(b)). Most below-the-line deductions are “itemized” deductions and available only to taxpayers like the Gregorys who do not take the standard deduction. See id. §63(b), (d), (e). Subtracting the below-the-line deductions from adjusted gross income yields taxable income. Id. §63.[6]

However, it is crucial to acknowledge that not all itemized deductions are treated equally. Following the implementation of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, miscellaneous itemized deductions have become increasingly unfavorable. The opinion delves deeper into the legal framework that identifies the deductions falling within this highly unfavorable category.

Except for twelve deductions identified in Section 67(b), all itemized deductions are “miscellaneous itemized deductions.” Id. §67(b). During the relevant time period, the law allowed a taxpayer to deduct miscellaneous itemized deductions “only to the extent that the aggregate of such deductions exceed[ed] 2 percent of adjusted gross income.” Id. §67(a). In other words, a taxpayer could deduct only the portion of miscellaneous itemized deductions that surpassed two percent of the taxpayer’s adjusted gross income. See Ted D. Englebrecht et al., Trusts Face Limit on Investment Advisory Fee Deduction, 77 Prac. Tax Strategies 92, 92 (2006) (“Section 67(a) limits an individual’s miscellaneous itemized deductions to the amount that exceeds 2% of adjusted gross income.”); Fed. Tax Coordinator 2d (Res. Inst. Am.) ¶ A-1311 (Apr. 2023 update) (describing this principle); Job Search Expenses Can Be Tax Deductible, I.R.S. (Aug. 4, 2012) (“The amount of your miscellaneous deduction that exceeds two percent of your adjusted gross income is deductible.”).[7]

The scheme can be described as follows: When presented with an item that qualifies as deductible, the initial step is to refer to §62 of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) to determine if the deduction can be claimed “above the line,” thereby affecting the computation of adjusted gross income. If the deduction does not meet this criterion, the next step is to consult IRC §67 to determine if it falls within the twelve deductions that have been exempted from the classification of miscellaneous itemized deductions under that section. If the deduction does not fall into any of these exempted categories, it defaults to the classification of a miscellaneous itemized deduction.

The opinion proceeds to detail the difficulties encountered by the Gregorys in relation to the tax years 2014 and 2015, which are the focus of this case. Additionally, it underscores the considerably more critical issue that these deductions confront under the current tax law.

This two-percent floor rendered miscellaneous itemized deductions of little value to most taxpayers. After the relevant time period here, Congress amended the Code to disallow all miscellaneous itemized deductions of whatever amount, rendering them of even less value. But this provision is set to sunset in 2025. I.R.C. §67(g).[8]

At this point, the Court redirects its attention to the fundamental inquiry of whether these deductions will genuinely provide limited value to the Gregorys and hold no value whatsoever for taxpayers in the years spanning from 2018 to 2025.

What Type of Deductions are Those Found in §183(b)?

The opinion offers a concise summary of the conclusions reached by the Tax Court, which prompted the Gregorys to lodge an appeal with the present court.

The Tax Court held that hobby losses under Section 183(b)(2) are miscellaneous itemized deductions that are applied below the line and subject to the two-percent floor imposed by Section 67(a). Because the Gregorys’ miscellaneous itemized deductions did not exceed two percent of their adjusted gross income, the Tax Court disallowed almost all their deductions attributable to Lady Leila[9].

The Court recognizes the contention of the Gregorys that the Tax Court committed an error in its decision.

The Gregorys dispute this reasoning. They argue that Section 183(b)(2) creates an above-the-line deduction for income-producing hobbies. Accordingly, they contend that the Tax Court erred in classifying their hobby losses as miscellaneous itemized deductions subject to below-the-line treatment and to the two-percent floor under Section 67.[10]

But the Court does not agree with the Gregory’s contention.

According to the majority of the panel, the case can be settled by referring to the clear and unambiguous language of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC). Hence, there is no ambiguity in the statutory language that requires resolution in order to determine the specific categorization of deductions allowed under IRC §183(b).

The language of the relevant statutory provisions settles this question. See Mamani v. Berzain, 825 F.3d 1304, 1309 (11th Cir. 2016). We presume that the Internal Revenue Code “says . . . what it means and means . . . what it says.” See Conn. Nat’l Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249, 254 (1992). We therefore begin our statutory interpretation with the words of the statutes themselves. Harris v. Garner, 216 F.3d 970, 972 (11th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Still, “[s]tatutory provisions are not written in isolation.” In re Shek, 947 F.3d 770, 776 (11th Cir. 2020). A provision’s meaning must consider both the “particular statutory language at issue” and “the language and design of the statute as a whole.” Id. at 777 (quoting K Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U.S. 281, 291 (1988)).[11]

The opinion elucidates the three essential provisions found in Section 183(b) that directly impact this issue.

Three provisions of Section 183 are relevant. First, Section 183(a) prohibits all hobby loss deductions except for those allowable in Section 183(b). I.R.C. §183(a) (stating that, if an “activity engaged in by an individual or an S Corporation” is “not engaged in for profit, no deduction attributable to such activity shall be allowed under this chapter except as provided in this section”). Second, Section 183(b)(1) grants activities not engaged in for profit (e.g., hobbies) the same deductions “allowable under this chapter . . . without regard to whether or not such activity is engaged in for profit.” Id. §183(b)(1). Third, and this is the disputed provision, Section 183(b)(2) allows “a deduction equal to the amount of deductions . . . allowable under this chapter . . . only if such activity were engaged in for profit.” Id. §183(b)(2). But the amount of this deduction cannot exceed the difference between the hobby’s gross income and the deductions allowed under Section 183(b)(1). See id. Thus, the law caps a Section 183(b)(2) deduction at the amount of the hobby’s “gross income” minus the deductions claimed under Section 183(b)(1).[12]

So where exactly does the Internal Revenue Code require that the deduction provided for under IRC §183(b)(2) be reported? Is it an above the line deduction as the Gregorys argue? Or is the proper treatment that of a miscellaneous itemized deduction as the IRS contends? The opinion analyzes the IRC to resolve these questions:

Section 183 does not expressly answer these questions. In this respect, Section 183(b)(2) resembles many other Code provisions that identify an allowable deduction but do not account for that deduction’s placement above or below the line. For example, Section 162(a) allows a deduction for trade and business expenses. But, to find out how to treat that deduction, we must look at Section 62, which provides that deductions for trade and business expenses reduce the taxpayer’s gross income and therefore belong above the line. See id. §62(a)(1). Likewise, many other deductions are granted in one Code section, but limited, capped, or circumscribed in other sections. See, e.g., id. §161 (allowing itemized deductions for individuals and corporations); id. §262(a) (disallowing itemized deductions for “personal, living, or family expenses”); id. §68 (phasing out itemized deductions when the taxpayer’s “adjusted gross income exceeds” a certain amount). Section 183 fits this pattern; it provides a deduction, but other sections tell taxpayers whether and how they may benefit from it.[13]

The Court majority finds that IRC Sections 62, 63 and 67 contain the text to resolve the questions posed in this case:

Because the text of Section 183 does not tell us how to treat the hobby loss deduction it provides, we must turn to other provisions of the Code to answer that question. See Hagans v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 694 F.3d 287, 296 (3d Cir. 2012) (“When a statute is ‘complex and contains many interrelated provisions,’ it may be ‘impossible to attach a plain meaning to provisions in isolation.’” (quoting Cleary ex rel. Cleary v. Waldman, 167 F.3d 801, 807 (3d Cir. 1999))). Those provisions are Section 62, Section 63, and Section 67. As explained below, those provisions establish that Section 183(b)(2) deductions are below-the-line and must exceed two percent of a taxpayer’s adjusted gross income before they become deductible. We will walk through each provision in turn.

We start with Section 62, which lists all above-the-line deductions that reduce gross income. See I.R.C. §62(a) (describing over a dozen above-the-line deductions). These deductions include trade and business expenses, id. §62(a)(1), “losses from the sale or exchange of property,” id. §62(a)(3), and certain attorney’s fees, id.§62(a)(21). The list of above-the-line deductions in Section 62(a) is exhaustive. Nothing in Section 62‘s text suggests that Congress hid other above-the-line deductions elsewhere in the Code. See id. §62. And Section 62 nowhere mentions Section 183 or hobby expenses within its comprehensive list of above-the-line deductions. See id. §62(a)(1)–(21); Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 93 (2012) (observing that courts should not “elaborate unprovided-for exceptions to a text”); EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., 575 U.S. 768, 774 (2015) (“We construe . . . [a statute’s] silence as exactly that: silence.”). Accordingly, Section 183 deductions are not above-the-line.

Next, we move to Section 63. Section 63(d) defines “itemized deductions” as all deductions except (1) the above-the-line deductions listed in Section 62 and (2) “any deduction referred to in any paragraph of subsection (b) [of Section 63].” Id. §63(d). For its part, Section 63(b) lists four deductions: the standard deduction, the personal exemption deduction under Section 151, the qualified business income deduction under Section 199A, and the charitable contribution deduction under Section 170(p). Id. §63(b). Again, Section 183 is nowhere to be found. The Section 183 deduction must therefore be an “itemized deduction.”

Lastly, we come to Section 67. Section 67(a) imposes the two-percent floor on “miscellaneous itemized deductions.” Id. §67(a). In Section 67(b), the statute defines “miscellaneous itemized deductions” as all “itemized deductions” other than twelve specific listed deductions, none of which mentions hobby expenses or Section 183. See id. §67(a)–(b). Thus, Section 183(b)(2) expenses are miscellaneous itemized deductions and deductible “only to the extent that the aggregate of such deductions exceeds 2 percent of adjusted gross income.” Id. §67(a).[14]

The majority opinion emphasizes that this perspective regarding the proper reporting of these deductions finds support from other courts and IRS regulations.

We note that our reading of these statutes is consistent with other courts and IRS regulations. Although none of our sister circuits has addressed the Gregorys’ arguments, several lower courts have reached the same conclusion we do here. See, e.g., Purdey v. United States, 39 Fed. Cl. 413, 417 (1997) (concluding that Section 183(b)(2) deductions are miscellaneous itemized deductions because Section 67(b) does not exclude them); Strode v. Comm’r, 109 T.C.M. (CCH) 1599, 2015 WL 3897787, at *11 n.12 (2015) (same). Likewise, the IRS provides by regulation that “expenses that . . . are subject to the 2-percent floor include . . . [e]xpenses for an activity for which a deduction is otherwise allowable under section 183.” 26 C.F.R. § 1.67-1T(a)(1).[15]

Furthermore, tax analysts and commentators lend additional support to this position.

Tax analysts and commentators also agree that “expenses of an activity not carried on for profit are” one of “the principal categories of miscellaneous itemized deductions.” B. Bittker & L. Lokken, Federal Taxation of Income, Estates and Gifts ¶ 30.4.2 (July 2022). Leading tax treatises inform tax practitioners that “[d]eductions for hobby activities are claimed as itemized deductions on Schedule A” and “[e]xpenses . . . allowed under the hobby loss rules are ‘miscellaneous itemized deductions.’” Fed. Tax Coordinator 2d (Res. Inst. Am.) ¶ M-5804 (Apr. 2023 update); see also 1 Richard D. Blau et al., S Corporations Federal Taxation §7:29 (Nov. 2022 update) (same); 33 Am. Jur. 2d Federal Taxation ¶ 1153 (May 2023 update) (same); 1 Edward F. Koren, Estate, Tax and Personal Financial Planning §4:10 n.15 (Mar. 2023 update) (same). Put another way, Section 183(b)(2) deductions “must be taken as miscellaneous itemized deductions subject to the 2%-of-AGI (adjusted gross income) reduction (Section 67).” Donald Samelson, The Income Tax Aspects of Artistic Activities, 93 Prac. Tax Strategies 244, 244 (2014).[16]

The taxpayers protest that this analysis isn’t correct, as Section 183 does provide guidance, requiring the deductions to be treated like trade or business deductions. The opinion provides the details of the taxpayers’ arguments.

For their part, the Gregorys resist this reasoning and argue that, unlike other Code provisions, Section 183(b)(2) does say how the deduction should be treated. Specifically, they assert Section 183(b)(2) creates an above-the-line deduction that is not subject to the two-percent floor. The Gregorys make two text-based arguments in support of this reading, but neither is persuasive.[17]

The opinion delves into an analysis of the first text-based argument presented by the Gregorys.

First, the Gregorys argue that Section 183(b)(2) does not confer a specific deduction but a deduction framework. That framework, as the argument goes, requires us to treat Section 183(b)(2) expenses the same as business expenses in all respects. The Gregorys contend that, because Section 183(b)(2) waives the for-profit requirement for other deductions in Chapter 1 of the Code, Section 183(b)(2) deductions receive the same placement as trade and business deductions on a taxpayer's return. If the Gregorys had conducted their chartering activities for profit, they could have deducted trade and business expenses from Lady Leila under Section 162 and placed that deduction above the line under Section 62(a). See Est. of Sherrod v. Comm'r, 774 F.2d 1057, 1064 (11th Cir. 1985) (“Section 162 permits the deduction of business expenses in arriving at adjusted gross income. . . .”) (emphasis added). They therefore conclude that their Section 183(b)(2) expenses attributable to Lady Leila are deductible above the line just as if they were trade or business expenses.[18]

The majority does not find this argument compelling or persuasive.

The text does not support the Gregorys’ argument that Section 183(b)(2)‘s deduction must be given the same priority and placement as a trade or business expense. Section 183(b)(2) grants “a deduction equal to the amount of the deductions” allowable for activities engaged in for profit. I.R.C. §183(b)(2). Despite referring to business activities to set the deduction “amount,” in no other respect does Section 183(b)(2) instruct us to treat that deduction the same as a business expense. Amount is not kind. Compare Amount, Oxford English Dictionary (online ed. Dec. 2022) (defining “amount” as “[a] quantity of something; a portion or measure) (emphasis added) with Kind, id. (defining “kind” as “[a] class or category of things distinguished by common characteristics” or “a particular variety or type”) (emphasis added). And, of course, even the “amount” of the hobby loss deduction under Section 183 is different from the amount of a comparable deduction available to a for-profit business because the Section 183 deduction is capped at the hobby’s income. See I.R.C. §183(b)(2). In short, Section 183(b)(2) permits a deduction otherwise disallowed by Section 183(a) and identifies its amount. But the deduction allowed by Section 183(b)(2) is its own thing, not a trade or business expense.[19]

As their second argument, the Gregorys assert that IRC §183(b) directly reduces gross income, rather than adjusting the calculation of adjusted gross income.

Second, the Gregorys argue that, because Section 183(b)(2) caps the deduction amount at the hobby’s gross income minus the Section 183(b)(1) deductions, we can surmise that Section 183(b)(2) expenses are supposed to reduce a taxpayer’s gross income — not the taxpayer’s adjusted gross income — and therefore belong above the line.[20]

Nevertheless, the panel does not find this argument to be compelling or persuasive either.

That argument also misses the mark. The Section 183(b)(2) cap is based on the hobby’s gross income; above-the-line deductions reduce an individual’s overall gross income from whatever source. These are two very different things. Section 183(b)(2) limits deductible hobby losses “to the extent that the gross income derived from such activity [i.e., the hobby] . . . exceeds the deductions allowable by [Section 183(b)(1)].” Id. §183(b)(2) (emphasis added). The Code defines “gross income” as “all income from whatever source derived.” Id. §61(a). The “gross income derived from [the hobby],” id. §183(b)(2), therefore means all income from the hobby, not the taxpayer’s total gross income. The Tax Court correctly concluded that Section 183(b)(2)‘s reference to “gross income” merely concerns the maximum allowable deduction amount under Section 183(b)(2). It is a benchmark for capping the deduction — it is not a command to apply hobby loss deductions against a taxpayer’s total gross income.[21]

The panel majority concludes:

In summary, the Tax Court correctly calculated the Gregorys' tax liability. Section 183(b)(2) allows a deduction for hobby losses but does not say whether it belongs above or below the line. Section 62, however, places that deduction below the line. Because Sections 63 and 67 also omit Section 183, hobby expenses deducted under Section 183(b)(2) are miscellaneous itemized deductions. During the relevant time period, these deductions were subject to a two-percent floor on adjusted gross income. The result is that Section 183(b)(2) gave the Gregorys a deduction for their expenses from operating Lady Leila, but Section 67 did not allow them to take that deduction because they could not meet the two-percent threshold for miscellaneous itemized deductions.[22]

One Judge Disagrees the IRC Mandates This Treatment – But Then Concludes Congress Resolved the Ambiguity

Despite reaching the same conclusion, Judge Wilson dissents from the majority's analysis in arriving at this decision. The concurring opinion asserts that the presence of ambiguity within IRC §183(b)(2) requires examining external sources for resolution beyond the Internal Revenue Code (IRC):

Here, the language of Section 183(b)(2) is ambiguous because it creates a question of “which of two or more meanings applies.” Scalia & Garner, supra. For hobbies not engaged in for profit, Section 183(b)(2) permits

a deduction equal to the amount of the deductions which would be allowable . . . only if such activity were engaged in for profit, but only to the extent that the gross income derived from such activity . . . exceeds the deductions allowable by reason of [Section 183(b)(1)].

Under the Commissioner’s interpretation of this provision, hobby expenses are miscellaneous itemized deductions subject to Section 67‘s two-percent floor and are deductible below the line against AGI. Under the Gregorys’ interpretation, hobby expenses are akin to business expenses and thus can be deducted above the line against gross income. Yet, on its face, Section 183(b)(2) simply does not tell us whether hobby expenses are miscellaneous itemized deductions or if they may be treated as business expenses. Indeed, based on a facial reading of the plain text, either interpretation seems plausible. Given the ambiguity in the statutory language, we can — and should — look to extrinsic materials to ascertain how Congress intended hobby expenses to be treated under the tax code. See DBB, Inc., 180 F.3d at 1281.[23]

But, in the end, Judge Wilson finds extrinsic evidence that indicates that Congress intended these §183(b)(2) deductions to be treated as miscellaneous itemized deductions:

Fortunately, the legislative history quickly clears up any ambiguity. Specifically, the December 2017 conference report for the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act1 confirms that hobby expenses are below-the-line miscellaneous itemized deductions that are deductible against AGI and subject to Section 67‘s two-percent floor. The conference report repealed certain miscellaneous itemized deductions subject to Section 67‘s two-percent floor for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017. See H.R. REP. NO. 115-466, at 273, 276 (2017) (Conf. Rep.). The report provides a non-exhaustive list of items that, under then-present law, were deductible under Section 67 provided they exceeded two percent of the taxpayer’s AGI. Id. at 273–74. Among the list of examples were “[h]obby expenses, but generally not more than hobby income.” Id. at 274. Thus, the conference report confirms that during the relevant time in this case — tax years 2014 and 2015 — Congress indeed intended hobby expenses to be treated as miscellaneous itemized deductions subject to Section 67‘s two-percent floor.[24]

[1] Gregory v. Commissioner, Case No. 22-10707, CA11, May 30, 2023, https://www.taxnotes.com/research/federal/court-documents/court-opinions-and-orders/eleventh-circuit-holds-hobby-loss-expenses-are-below-the-line/7gtc9 (retrieved June 2, 2023)

[2] Gregory v. Commissioner, Case No. 22-10707, CA11, May 30, 2023

[3] Gregory v. Commissioner, Case No. 22-10707, CA11, May 30, 2023

[4] Gregory v. Commissioner, Case No. 22-10707, CA11, May 30, 2023

[5] Gregory v. Commissioner, Case No. 22-10707, CA11, May 30, 2023

[6] Gregory v. Commissioner, Case No. 22-10707, CA11, May 30, 2023

[7] Gregory v. Commissioner, Case No. 22-10707, CA11, May 30, 2023

[8] Gregory v. Commissioner, Case No. 22-10707, CA11, May 30, 2023

[9] Gregory v. Commissioner, Case No. 22-10707, CA11, May 30, 2023

[10] Gregory v. Commissioner, Case No. 22-10707, CA11, May 30, 2023

[11] Gregory v. Commissioner, Case No. 22-10707, CA11, May 30, 2023

[12] Gregory v. Commissioner, Case No. 22-10707, CA11, May 30, 2023

[13] Gregory v. Commissioner, Case No. 22-10707, CA11, May 30, 2023

[14] Gregory v. Commissioner, Case No. 22-10707, CA11, May 30, 2023

[15] Gregory v. Commissioner, Case No. 22-10707, CA11, May 30, 2023

[16] Gregory v. Commissioner, Case No. 22-10707, CA11, May 30, 2023

[17] Gregory v. Commissioner, Case No. 22-10707, CA11, May 30, 2023

[18] Gregory v. Commissioner, Case No. 22-10707, CA11, May 30, 2023

[19] Gregory v. Commissioner, Case No. 22-10707, CA11, May 30, 2023

[20] Gregory v. Commissioner, Case No. 22-10707, CA11, May 30, 2023

[21] Gregory v. Commissioner, Case No. 22-10707, CA11, May 30, 2023

[22] Gregory v. Commissioner, Case No. 22-10707, CA11, May 30, 2023

[23] Gregory v. Commissioner, Case No. 22-10707, CA11, May 30, 2023

[24] Gregory v. Commissioner, Case No. 22-10707, CA11, May 30, 2023