- 3 -
such losses as itemized deductions if he elects to forgo the
standard deduction. See sec. 63.
Petitioner admits that his wife received slot machine
winnings in the amount of $1,773 in 1996, that this amount was
not reported on their tax return, and that this amount is income
subject to the Federal income tax. Petitioner argues that the
taxation of the gambling winnings in his case is “unequal
treatment under the law,” in violation of the “equal protection
as well as equal treatment” afforded by the United States
Constitution. Petitioner argues that certain taxpayers escape
taxation on their gambling winnings because casinos do not issue
informational returns for all taxpayers who receive such
winnings.
Although the Equal Protection Clause in the Fourteenth
Amendment limits the powers of the States, there is no comparable
clause explicitly applicable to Federal legislation. However,
the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment has been construed
as imposing an equal protection requirement in respect of
classification to the extent that “discrimination [resulting from
such classification] may be so unjustifiable as to be violative
of due process.” Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497, 499 (1954)
(fn. ref. omitted).
In evaluating whether a statutory classification violates
equal protection, we generally apply a rational basis standard.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011