- 5 -
Whether due to favored treatment of the Federal
employee, or officer in the statutes under Title 5
U.S.C. et seq., there exist a great legal disparity in
the economic employment benefits, privileges, or
protections directly received from the Federal
Government by the Federal employee, or officer, and
what the petitioner directly receives from the Federal
Government * * *.
As a result, she argues, application of the same rates of Federal
income tax to her as are applied to Federal employees is
unconstitutional. She asserts that taxes imposed on her and used
to pay benefits above and beyond wages to Federal employees are
improper takings of her income for a “private purpose” within the
meaning of various cases dealing with disparate treatment by
Federal statutes or agencies.
Petitioner’s argument is erroneous in several respects.
First, provision of benefits to a Federal employee in relation to
his or her employment is an expenditure of funds for a public
purpose, not the private purpose of the employee. Second, tax
rates are not applied to employees by classification, whether
public or private, but to levels and categories of income.
Third, even if a distinction had been made between employees paid
with Federal funds and employees paid with private funds, such
classifications, having a rational basis, do not violate the
constitutional rights of taxpayers. See, e.g., Sjoroos v.
Commissioner, 81 T.C. 971, 975 (1983).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011