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 — Canine silence Image source: wpclipart.com   In the Arthur Conan Doyle short story, Silver Blaze, fictional detective Sherlock Holmes solved the case by inferring intent from silence—the significance of a dog who didn't bark. In a tax court case this week (149 T.C. No. 2, Gregory), internal revenue ...
Decisions — Eat, drink, deduct Image source: Theodoor Rombouts , via Wikimedia Commons  Even if you don't eat like a hockey player, you may be interested in the tax court's take on the rules limiting deductions for meals. Under current tax law, meal and entertainment expenses are not deductible unless the expenses are...
Decisions — Worth the whistle Image source: Zephyris, via Wikimedia Commons   A taxpayer thinks his information is worth the whistle. The IRS says the information is not worth the dust which the rude wind blows in the taxpayer's face…or something along those Shakespearean lines. Who's right? In general, tax law pr...
Decisions — Foreseeing anticipation Image source: https://wpclipart.com/   According to Dr. Seuss, sometimes the questions are complicated, and the answers are simple. The good doc probably wasn't referring to tax law, but that doesn't stop tax practitioners from anticipating a simple answer before researching the question...
Posted in Taxing Lessons From Court Decisions Tagged with: , ,