- 16 - In such instance, retroactivity would not be constitutionally objectionable on grounds related to a wholly new tax. Accordingly, petitioner’s situation does not present reason for departure from the lenient standards typically employed to evaluate tax legislation. As regards legitimate governmental purpose, the legislative history accompanying the SBJPA notes that “Courts have interpreted the exclusion from gross income of damages received on account of personal injury or sickness broadly in some cases to cover awards for personal injury that do not relate to a physical injury or sickness.” H. Conf. Rept. 104-737, supra at 300, 1996-3 C.B. at 1040. Congress’s choice to narrow the exclusion, and any retroactive application of the change, would therefore appear to be rationally linked to the legitimate objective of raising revenue. Legislative history further reveals that the change was intended as a curative measure designed to reduce or eliminate ambiguity in the otherwise applicable law. Reference is made to “confusion” that “led to substantial litigation”, including the Supreme Court cases of Commissioner v. Schleier, 515 U.S. 323 (1995), and United States v. Burke, 504 U.S. 229 (1992). H. Rept. 104-586, at 143 (1996), 1996-3 C.B. 331, 481. In addition, the period of “retroactivity” alleged by petitioner in this case, i.e., slightly less than 2 years, doesPage: 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