Taxing Lessons From Court Decisions

Federal Income Tax and the Constitution

Thanks for sharing!

Howard Chandler Christy [Public domain], via Wikimedia CommonsImage source:
Howard Chandler Christy
[Public domain]
via Wikimedia Commons

What amendment to the constitution of the United States comes to mind when you think of federal income taxes? The sixteenth? That’s no surprise, since the thirty words of the sixteenth amendment authorize a federal income tax.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

The taxpayer in T.C. Memo. 2013-111 (Field) has a different amendment in mind—the fifth. No, not the part about not having to be a witness against yourself. The fifth amendment also forbids discrimination that is “so unjustifiable as to be violative of due process”—in other words, it provides for equal protection under the law.

What’s the definition of equal protection? Look to yet another amendment to find out. According to the US Supreme Court, fifth amendment equal protection claims are the same as equal protection claims under the fourteenth amendment, which assures “equal application” of law.

Equal application of law—equal protection—means the result of a law is not relevant as long as there is no discrimination in its application.

In Field, the taxpayer believes she is being discriminated against because she cannot claim a $10,144 adoption credit on her federal income tax return. The problem? She claimed the filing status of married filing separately instead of choosing to file a joint return with her spouse, and the rules for claiming the adoption credit require a married couple to file a joint return. (While there are exceptions to the general rule, none of them applied.)

The tax court labels this rule a “tax classification”, and, following Supreme Court opinions, says such a classification is constitutional if it has a rational basis to a legitimate purpose.

And what about the fact that the IRS allowed the deduction in prior years under the same circumstances? Does lack of consistency equal discrimination?

No, because each tax year stands on its own.

The result: No discrimination means no credit.

***

Other posts you might enjoy

Decisions — Traveling with taxes Image source: wpclipart.com   Not all who wander are lost, but sometimes their tax deductions are. 1. In Docket #5409-17S (Pulsipher), the taxpayer was a professional artist. He worked in fashion, as a musician, and in set design. In 2015, he was employed on production sets, winding...
Decisions — Rejecting the boilerplate Image source: wpclipart.com   The whistleblower wanted a share of the $37.5 million the IRS collected. The IRS gave him boilerplate instead. In Kasper (150 T.C. No. 2), the taxpayer told the IRS that his former employer failed to pay overtime wages to employees and therefore didn't wi...
Decisions — Dueling rules Image source: wpclipart.com   En garde! When provisions in the internal revenue code appear to conflict, taxpayers and the IRS face off in court. Here are two cases from this week involving disputes over dueling code sections. 1. In Docket No. 2103-17S (Palsgaard), the dueling internal...
Decisions — The bagel business Image source: wpclipart.com   Unlike bagels, the deductions discussed in TC Memo. 2017-246 (Lender Management, LLC) have only two flavors: one the taxpayer prefers and one the IRS prefers. The taxpayer manages investments for heirs of a family fortune built on frozen bagels. During ta...
Tagged , ,