- 4 -
See Regan v. Taxation With Representation, 461 U.S. 540, 547
(1983). We apply a higher standard of review only if it is found
that the statute (1) impermissibly interferes with the exercise
of a fundamental right, such as freedom of speech, or (2) employs
a suspect classification, such as race. See, e.g., id.; Harris
v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297, 322 (1980). Neither of these exceptions
applies in this case. Under the rational basis standard, a
challenged classification is valid if rationally related to a
legitimate governmental interest. See City of Cleburne v.
Cleburne Living Ctr., Inc., 473 U.S. 432, 440 (1985); City of New
Orleans v. Dukes, 427 U.S. 297, 303 (1976). Legislatures have
especially broad latitude in creating classification and
distinctions in tax statutes. See Regan v. Taxation With
Representation, supra at 547.
The informational return which petitioner’s wife received in
this case was required by section 6041 and the accompanying
regulations. As a general rule, a person engaged in a trade or
business who makes a payment to an individual in excess of $600
must provide an informational return to the Secretary of the
Treasury (or his delegate) and to the individual. See sec.
6041(a), (d). A person engaged in a trade or business who pays
winnings to an individual of $1,200 or more from a bingo game or
slot machine play, or of $1,500 or more from a keno game, must
provide such an informational return. See sec. 7.6041-1(a),
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011