- 5 -
Amendment and of the equal protection standards incorporated
thereunder.2
We have consistently denied constitutional challenges to
marital classifications in the tax code. These have included
challenges brought by disadvantaged married taxpayers,3 see
DeMars v. Commissioner, 79 T.C. 247 (1982); Druker v.
Commissioner, 77 T.C. 867 (1981), affd. on this issue and revd.
in part 697 F.2d 46 (2d Cir. 1982); Brady v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1983-163, affd. without published opinion 729 F.2d 1445 (3d
Cir. 1984), as well as by disadvantaged singles, see Kellems v.
Commissioner, 58 T.C. 556 (1972), affd. per curiam 474 F.2d 1399
(2d Cir. 1973). Other Federal courts have similarly upheld
marital classifications in the tax code. See, e.g., Mapes v.
United States, 217 Ct. Cl. 115, 576 F.2d 896 (1978); Jansen v.
United States, 441 F. Supp. 20 (D. Minn. 1977), affd. per curiam
567 F.2d 828 (8th Cir. 1977); Johnson v. United States, 422 F.
2The equal protection principles of the Fourteenth Amendment
are encompassed within the Fifth Amendment as applied to Federal
legislation. See, e.g., Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, 420 U.S. 636,
638 n.2 (1975); Hamilton v. Commissioner, 68 T.C. 603, 606
(1977).
3Being accorded married status under the tax code is not
always favorable. See U.S. General Accounting Office, Income Tax
Treatment of Married and Single Individuals (Pub. No. GAO/GGD-96-
175) (1996) (describing provisions in the tax code favoring
single taxpayers over married taxpayers and vice versa); see also
Cohen & Morris, “Tax Issues From ‘Father Knows Best’ To ‘Heather
Has Two Mommies’”, 84 Tax Notes 1309 (Aug. 30, 1999) (describing
the tax advantages and tax planning opportunities available to
nonmarried couples).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011