• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to secondary sidebar

Alston & Bird Tax Blog

  • Home
  • Services
  • Contacts

Tax Equal Protection

June 18, 2012 By Jasper L. (Jack) Cummings, Jr. and Edward Tanenbaum

Armour v. City of Indianapolis, 132 S. Ct. 2073 (2012) ruled that a city did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when it chose to forgive remaining unpaid installments of a special assessment for sewage improvements but not to refund those taxpayers who had paid in full without choosing to pay in installments.

The Chief Justice and Justices Alito and Scalia dissented. Therefore, the “liberal” Justices plus Justice Thomas ruled in favor of maximum discretion for the taxing authority, and three fourths of the “conservative” Justices would have ruled in favor of less discretion for the taxing authority. The case can be viewed as the most recent in a three part set with Allegheny Pittsburgh Coal Co. v. County Com., 488 U.S. 336 (1989) and Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1 (1992). Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote a unanimous opinion in Allegheny ruling for the taxpayer; John G. Roberts, Jr. was one of the attorneys for the taxpayer. Nordlinger was a split decision for the tax collector. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association filed a brief on the side of the tax collector because the tax collector in Nordlinger defended California Proposition 13, which instituted the “welcome stranger” method of taxing recently purchased homes more heavily than long held homes.
The political dynamics of the opinions are somewhat conflicting but fairly clear. On one hand, the last two opinions stand for the proposition that governments have maximum flexibility in making taxing distinctions, normally a liberal position. On the other hand, Nordlinger upheld the California tax initiative that effectively started what its proponents have tried to cast as a “taxpayer revolt,” which ultimately lead to the no-tax-increase pledge promoted by Americans for Tax Reform.

As a matter of legal reasoning the cases purport to come down to what distinctions in taxation are rational for equal protection purposes. The majority opinion in the new decision stated these decisional principles, which are not really in dispute: 

  • The taxing distinction must have a rational relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose. 
  • The government need not articulate the purpose. 
  • Rationality means the legitimate government purpose is plausibly served by the distinction. 
  • When the distinction affects a fundamental right or is based on a suspect classification, stricter scrutiny will be applied. 
  • Subject matters that are local (in the case of state and local legislation), economic, social, commercial or taxation generally do not require such strict scrutiny. 
  • When strict scrutiny is not applied, deference is accorded to the legislature, and even more deference is accorded in tax cases. 
  • Therefore, absent strict scrutiny a distinction will be presumed to rationally advance some legitimate purpose unless the complaining party carries the burden of proving otherwise, which requires disproving every conceivable basis for the distinction. Since the government need not articulate its purpose, this process of proof entails hypothesizing purposes and disproving them.

Filed Under: Controversies - Federal, Corporate - State, State and Local Planning, State and Local Tax Incentives, State Tax Litigation

About Jasper L. (Jack) Cummings, Jr.

Jack Cummings is counsel in the Federal Tax Group of Alston & Bird in Raleigh and Washington, D.C. He served as IRS associate chief counsel (corporate) and chair of the Corporate Tax Committee of the ABA Section of Taxation.

[Read Bio]

About Edward Tanenbaum

Edward Tanenbaum is co-chair of the firm’s Federal & International Tax Group and a member of the firm’s Global Resources & Strategies Committee. Mr. Tanenbaum’s practice consists primarily of planning and structuring tax efficient solutions for cross-border business transactions and investments by foreign multinational corporations and high-net-worth individuals.

[Read Bio]

Primary Sidebar

As a service of Alston & Bird’s Tax groups, this blog focuses on current issues and events in international, federal, state and local tax and wealth planning of interest to business.

Subscribe

Receive email notifications when new posts are added.

Check your inbox or spam folder to confirm your subscription.

Tags

401(k) ACA Affordable Care Act audit BEAT CARES Act CFC Corporate Tax Planning covid-19 Delaware ERISA Escheat FATCA FDII Gift cards GILTI international tax IRA IRAs IRS Kelmar New York nexus OECD qualified plans Quill RUUPA SCOTUS Section 351 Section 355 Section 367 Section 385 section 482 section 965 State legislation Subpart F Supreme Court Tax Court Tax Cuts and Jobs Act tax reform TCJA Treasury Unclaimed property UP Wayfair

Secondary Sidebar

Categories

Recent Posts

  • Litigate, Legislate and Repeat: The Delaware Escheat Law Spin Cycle
  • Looking Back at Georgia’s 2022 Legislative Session
  • Diving into IRS’s Annual Report on Advance Pricing Agreements: Can APMA Overcome Its Sisyphean Task?
  • California Dreaming of a Voluntary Compliance Program
  • Testing for COVID and Your Kits for Free: Expanded Coverage of OTC COVID-19 Test Kits and Developments in Preventive Care

Archives

Copyright © 2022 · Alston & Bird · All Rights Reserved. Privacy.