Lunding v. New York Tax Appeals Tribunal, 522 U.S. 287, 42 (1998)

Page:   Index   Previous  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42

328

LUNDING v. NEW YORK TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Ginsburg, J., dissenting

short, the Court's "related-to-income" approach directly leads to what Christopher Lunding candidly argued: Any and every personal deduction allowed to residents must be allowed to nonresidents in the proportion that New York income bears to the taxpayer's total income. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 19-20. If that is the law of this case, long-settled provisions and decisions have been overturned, see supra, at 324-325, beyond the capacity of any legislature to repair. The Court's "notions of fairness," ante, at 315, in my judgment, do not justify today's extraordinary resort to a Privileges and Immunities Clause "the contours of which have [not] been precisely shaped by the process and wear of constant litigation and judicial interpretation." Baldwin v. Fish and Game Comm'n of Mont., 436 U. S., at 379.

* * *

For the reasons stated, I do not agree that the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, § 2, mandates the result Lunding seeks—the insulation of his 1990 alimony payments from any State's tax. Accordingly, I would affirm the judgment of the New York Court of Appeals, and I dissent from this Court's judgment.

custody of minor children has been awarded, the desirability of such parent's securing employment." Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-82 (1995).

Page:   Index   Previous  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42

Last modified: October 4, 2007