- 10 -
336 (1989), petitioner’s problem is that any rational basis--
whether articulated by Congress or hypothesized by a court--will
suffice.8
One obvious rational basis for new section 6404(e)’s
effective date is simple administrative convenience. In enacting
new section 6404(e), Congress needed to define the situations
that would and would not be subject to its provisions. Taking
into account that income taxes are levied on an annual basis, it
was rational for Congress to restrict the amendment’s application
by tax year, limited to liabilities for tax years beginning after
the date of enactment and so giving the IRS some time to adjust
its own administrative routine at a lower cost to the Government.
Considerations of administrative convenience have long been
recognized as a valid reason for legislative line drawing. See
N.Y. Rapid Transit, 303 U.S. at 580-581; Carmichael v. S. Coal &
Coke Co., 301 U.S. 495, 511 (1937). We need not, indeed we must
not, engage in judicial second-guessing of such a legislative
decision: “The fact that another reasonable classification or
8 Courts have traditionally granted even greater deference
to distinctions drawn by tax laws than they have to distinctions
drawn by laws in other “rational basis” areas. See, e.g., Kelso,
“Equal Protection After the Rational Basis Era: Is it Time to
Reassess the Current Standards of Review?”, 4 U. Pa. J. Const. L.
225, 230-231 (2002) (recognizing that there exists a “second-
order” rational review more stringent than the one applied in
Allegheny Pittsburgh Coal).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011