to establish a denial of equal protection in the application of a tax statute, there should be something that amounts to an intention, or the equivalent of fraudulent purpose, to disregard the fundamental principle of uniformity
How later courts described this case
- to establish a denial of equal protection in the application of a tax statute, there should be something that amounts to an intention, or the equivalent of fraudulent purpose, to disregard the fundamental principle of uniformity
- “A taxpayer complaining that administration of a tax violates its right to be taxed uniformly with others in its class must demonstrate . . . discrimination in the application of the tax” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)
- "deliberate, purposeful discrimination” is required; taxpayer must show "systematic, deliberate method of enforcement of the tax laws, and not mere errors or oversights"
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
MANDERINO, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent. The appellant taxpayer had sold all of its assets and had ceased doing business several months before the adoption of the new law raising the tax rate. The new law can not properly tax what for practical purposes was a nonexistent taxpayer. Other corporate taxpayers which went out of business in 1969 and were thus also nonexistent on the day of the adoption of the new tax were required to pay only the lower rate solely because they filed a return earlier than the appellant. The filing date difference does not justify a different tax treatment. The new law increasing the tax rate was inapplicable to the appellant.