- 14 -
application of an amendment made to a Federal estate tax statute.
In that context, the Supreme Court explained as follows:
This Court repeatedly has upheld retroactive tax
legislation against a due process challenge. Some of
its decisions have stated that the validity of a
retroactive tax provision under the Due Process Clause
depends upon whether retroactive application is so
harsh and oppressive as to transgress the
constitutional limitation. The harsh and oppressive
formulation, however, does not differ from the
prohibition against arbitrary and irrational
legislation that applies generally to enactments in the
sphere of economic policy. The due process standard to
be applied to tax statutes with retroactive effect,
therefore, is the same as that generally applicable to
retroactive economic legislation: * * * that burden is
met simply by showing that the retroactive application
of the legislation is itself justified by a rational
legislative purpose. [Id. at 30-31; internal
quotations and citations omitted.]
The Supreme Court further noted:
“Taxation is neither a penalty imposed on the taxpayer
nor a liability which he assumes by contract. It is
but a way of apportioning the cost of government among
those who in some measure are privileged to enjoy its
benefits and must bear its burdens. Since no citizen
enjoys immunity from that burden, its retroactive
imposition does not necessarily infringe due process *
* * ” [Id. at 33 (quoting Welch v. Henry, 305 U.S.
134, 146-147 (1938)).]
In general, the raising of Government revenue is considered
a sufficient and legitimate legislative purpose for supporting a
“modest” period of retroactivity. Id. at 32-33; id. at 37
(O’Connor, J., concurring in judgment); NationsBank v. United
States, 269 F.3d 1332, 1337-1338 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Quarty v.
United States, 170 F.3d 961, 967 (9th Cir. 1999); Furlong v.
Commissioner, 36 F.3d 25, 27-28 (7th Cir. 1994), affg. T.C. Memo.
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