Brief, Tax Law - Case Study Example

Lecturer Case Brief James O. DRUKER and Joan S. Druker, Petitioners-Appellants-Cross-Appellees, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,Respondent-Appellee-Cross-Appellant.Nos. 108, 115 and 116United States Court of Appeals, Second CircuitFacts: James O. Druker and Joan S. Druker, as plaintiffs sue the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to contest the constitutionality of the marriage penalty. After failing to file the correct and legitimate returns in 1975 and 1976, this couple argues that income tax structure is unfair and violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection.

In their opinion, this was discriminatory to the working married couples like them. IRC Section 1 provides a clear guideline for tax returns. It stipulates unmarried individuals in 1(C) and higher rates in 1(C). These determine the kind of tax returns to be filed by the single and married people. Between 1913 and 1948, each person was supposed to be taxed on their own without considering their marital status. In 1948, the Revenue Act spelt out that each married couple was supposed to file a joint return then remit double the tax that would be paid by a single individual (Fox 59).

In 1969, a new class of tax payers called the two wage-earners married couple with a greater combined tax burden. This was the root cause of the "marriage penalty." Issues: The major issue in this case was about the constitutionality of the ‘marriage penalty’ as argued by the appellants. Thus, the court sought to find out the following:i. Is the ‘marriage penalty’ constitutional?ii. Does the ‘marriage penalty’ deny a person their freedom and rights in marriage? How is it related on contravenes the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution which guarantees individual freedom?iii. What is the essence of IRC Section 1(D); (D) to the single and married taxpayers?

Analysis: The court addressed the issue of the Fourteenth Amendment and the constitutionality of the Internal Revenue Commission laws. While acknowledging that the law offers individual liberty, it was held that the "marriage penalty," in no way, violates the constitution. Besides, while accepting that this law has some adverse effects on individual taxpayers, it is an essential close in the constitution. Tax compliance is a duty and a responsibility of a patriotic citizen. IRC Section 1(D) clearly stipulates that married couple with higher incomes like the Drukers have to fall into a new category from other couples with less income.

After all, the court confirmed, Revenue Act of 1948 states such married couples are supposed to file a joint tax return and double their remittances. I.R.C. Sec. 6694 (a) which forms part of the Tax Reform Act of 1976 imposes a penalty of $100 for any deliberate or intentional underestimation when filling tax returns. Such a violation constitutes negligence which is punishable by law. Revenue Act of 1948 states such married couples are supposed to file a joint tax return and double their remittances. I.R.C. Sec. 6694 (a) which forms part of the Tax Reform Act of 1976 imposes a penalty of $100 for any deliberate or intentional underestimation when filling tax returns.

Such a violation constitutes negligence which is punishable by law. Conclusion: I.R.C. Sec. 6694 (a) which forms part of the Tax Reform Act of 1976 imposes a penalty of $100 for any deliberate or intentional underestimation when filling tax returns. Such a violation constitutes negligence which is punishable by law (Fox 172). The court affirmed the earlier ruling and held that the taxpayer was wrong for their negligence and violations. However, the commissioner’s appeal was reversed in line with Sec. 6653(a). The appellants were liable to comply with the ‘marriage penalty’ as stipulated by the law.

Historical Notes: The James O. DRUKER and Joan S. Druker, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue was a landmark ruling. The ‘marriage penalty’ is still in force up to date. Works CitedFox, Steven. Income Tax in the USA. New York: SF Cardwell LLC, 2013. Print.