- 9 -
To conclude this aspect of our opinion, the 1998 amendment
applies to 1997, the tax year before us. We dismiss petitioner’s
argument that because Mr. Pancake did not identify Christina and
Mitchell as his qualifying children on his 1997 return, he is not
eligible for the earned income credit for that year.
Issue 2. Constitutionality of 1998 Amendment
We now turn to whether the retroactive application of the 1998
amendment to petitioner’s 1997 tax year denies petitioner due
process of law under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. As
explained infra, we hold that it does not.
The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution provides: “No person
shall be * * * deprived of life, liberty, or property without due
process of law”. The Supreme Court has consistently upheld
retroactive tax legislation against due process challenges. See,
e.g., United States v. Carlton, 512 U.S. 26, 30-31 (1994); United
States v. Darusmont, 449 U.S. 292 (1981); Welch v. Henry, 305 U.S.
134 (1938); United States v. Hudson, 299 U.S. 498 (1937); Milliken
v. United States, 283 U.S. 15 (1931); Cooper v. United States, 280
U.S. 409 (1930); Brushaber v. Union Pac. R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, 20
(1916). “Congress ‘almost without exception’ has given general
revenue statutes effective dates prior to the dates of actual
enactment.” United States v. Carlton, supra at 32-33 (quoting
United States v. Darusmont, supra at 296). The test of invalidity
of a retroactive tax law is whether the retroactive nature of the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011