- 7 -
artists who earn more than $16,000 annually. Petitioner cites
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Cmty. v. Yavapai County, 50 F.3d
739 (9th Cir. 1995), for the proposition that a tax is
discriminatory if it is not imposed equally upon similarly
situated groups, and contends that respondent’s reading of
“adjusted gross income” improperly discriminates between
performing artists whose performing artist income does not exceed
$16,000 and performing artists whose performing artist income
does not exceed $16,000 but whose total income from all sources
exceeds $16,000. Petitioner also argues that the Internal
Revenue Code unconstitutionally favors elementary and secondary
school teachers, who may deduct employee business expenses up to
$250 from their gross income regardless of the amount of income
they earn, over artists. See sec. 62(a)(2)(D), (d). We disagree
with these arguments.
A tax statute which provides different treatment for
different classes of persons generally does not violate the Fifth
Amendment if it has a rational basis. Regan v. Taxation with
Representation, 461 U.S. 540, 547 (1983); United States v. Md.
Sav.-Share Ins. Corp., 400 U.S. 4, 6 (1970); Barclay & Co. v.
Edwards, 267 U.S. 442, 450 (1925); Durham v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2004-125. Legislatures have particularly broad latitude in
creating classifications and distinctions in tax statutes. Regan
v. Taxation with Representation, supra; Carmichael v. S. Coal &
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011