Charles Durham - Page 9

                                        - 9 -                                         
          will uphold classifications in tax legislation if they have any             
          rational basis--unless they impinge a fundamental right or use a            
          suspect classification.  See Hamilton v. Commissioner, 68 T.C.              
          603, 606 (1977).  If this case featured one of those classifica-            
          tions, it would trigger a different kind of scrutiny.  As the               
          Supreme Court noted in Regan, “The case would be different if               
          Congress were to discriminate invidiously in its subsidies in               
          such a way as to aim at the suppression of dangerous ideas”                 
          (internal citations omitted).  461 U.S. at 548.  See also Hooper            
          v. Bernalillo County Assessor, 472 U.S. 612, 623 (1985) (greater            
          scrutiny may be required when tax distinctions are made on the              
          basis of durational residence requirements).                                
               Petitioner does not argue that Congress was impinging on any           
          fundamental right or making any suspect classification, but only            
          that new section 6404(e)'s effective date lacks any rational                
          basis.  And although petitioner’s is the first challenge to the             
          constitutionality of this particular part of the Code, history              
          shows that few “rational basis” challenges succeed--the deference           
          courts pay to legislatures when reviewing any statute for a                 
          rational basis being a “paradigm of judicial restraint,” Beach              
          Communications, 508 U.S. at 314.  While there are even tax laws             
          struck down under rational basis review, e.g., Allegheny                    
          Pittsburgh Coal Co. v. County Commn. of Webster County, 488 U.S.            







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011