Selene Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/US-Supreme-Court-State/2015/05/18/id/645218/2Maryland’s income tax scheme fails the internal consistency test.8A simple example illustrates the point.Assume that every State imposed the following taxes,which are similar to Maryland’s “county” and “special nonresident” taxes: (1) a 1.25% tax on income that residents earn in State, (2) a 1.25% tax on income that residents earn in other jurisdictions, and (3) a 1.25% tax onincome that nonresidents earn in State. Assume further that two taxpayers, April and Bob, both live in State A,but that April earns her income in State A whereas Bob earns his income in State B. In this circumstance, Bob will pay more income tax than April solely because he earns income interstate. Specifically, April will have topay a 1.25% tax only once, to State A. But Bob will have to pay a 1.25% tax twice: once to State A, where he resides, and once to State B, where he earns the income.Critically—and this dispels a central argument made by petitioner and the principal dissent—the Marylandscheme’s discriminatory treatment of interstate commerce is not simply the result of its interaction with the taxingschemes of other States. Instead, the internal consistency test reveals what the undisputed economic analysis shows:Maryland’s tax scheme is inherently discriminatory and operates as a tariff. See Brief for Tax Economists 4, 9;Brief for Knoll & Mason 2. This identity between Maryland’s tax and a tariff is fatal because tariffs are “[t]heparadigmatic example of a law discriminating against interstate commerce.”West Lynn , 512 U. S., at 193Indeed, when asked about the foregoing analysis made by amici Tax Economists and Knoll & Mason, counsel forMaryland responded, “I don’t dispute the mathematics. They lose me when they switch from tariffs to incometaxes.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 9. But Maryland has offered no reason why our analysis should change because we dealwith an income tax rather than a formal tariff, and we see none. After all, “tariffs against the products of otherStates are so patently unconstitutional that our cases reveal not a single attempt by any State to enact one.Instead, the cases are filled with state laws that aspire to reap some of the benefits of tariffs by other means.” West Lynn, supra , at 193.http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-485_o7jp.pdfFascinating case.Rarely will you find Scalia and Thomas dissenting and Ruth "Buzzie" Ginsburg also dissenting.http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-485_o7jp.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 Buzzi... that's funny, Adam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted May 19, 2015 Author Share Posted May 19, 2015 Buzzi... that's funny, Adam. What's funny is I would rather have the above lady than the ACLU Board of Director member below: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 Xmy mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now