In addition here is the CCH explanation:
COMMENT. If the surviving spouse is predeceased by more than one spouse, the deceased spousal unused exclusion amount available for use by the surviving spouse would be limited to the lesser of $5 million or the unused exclusion of the last deceased spouse.
Regardless of the amount of the exclusion per the tax code, I want to meet this woman.
========================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT: Just make sure you don't marry her if you do meet her.
The court exceeded its authority - and its own prior decisions. The imposition of tax is the imposition of a burden for which the court previously found were unconsititutional (and for good reason). Also, note that there was no true ex-post-facto statute here. The IRS on its own, applied a correction retroactively; an unconstitutional act by itself. There is no exception allowing for intent or "correcting a mistake." The court is wrong.
Oh, well. There goes that mystery plot idea.
Seth
The Supreme Court is right by definition, since it is the highest authority.
But retroactive changes to the income tax are upheld by the US Supreme Court. Many states raised their taxes recently, and some people found themselves owing a lot more on capital gains they incurred in the early part of the year, but they lost in court. Are you saying the retroactive changes to the estate tax are NOT OK, but to the income tax are OK? Besides, what was the earlier decision that said that retroactive tax increases are unconstitutional? The court does overrule itself. At one time segregation in schools was legal, now it isn't. Even some campaign finance laws got overturned recently.
There is no "earlier decision." The U.S. Constitution itself states that Congress may pass no ex-post-facto laws, which means retroactivity is forbidden, period.
Unfortunately, the USSC has determined that the law you refer to in Article I, Sec. 9, Clause 3 and Article I, Sec. 10, Clause 1 deals with criminal law and not civil law. That is why the USSC has found on more than one occasion, that retroactive changes to civil law under certain circumstances is not in conflict with Article I.
A quote I read recently:
"Soon after adoption of the Sixteenth Amendment, on October 3, 1913, Congress enacted the first income tax law. This law was retroactive and provided for a tax on all income arising on or after March 1, 1913"
-Mark Bole
Doesn't mean it was legal. All that can be inferred is that it was never challenged.
Retroactivity has often been challenged in the courts. Here's one recent case that goes over the parameters:
The USSC has upheld retroactive tax changes numerous times. Here is a partial list: United States v. Carlton, 512 U.S. 26 (1994); United States v. Hemme,
476 U.S. 558 (1986); United States v. Darusmont, 449 U.S. 292 (1981); Welch v. Henry, 305 U.S. 134 (1938); United States v. Hudson, 299 U.S. 498 (1937); Milliken v. United States, 283 U.S. 15 (1931); Cooper v. United States, 280 U.S. 409 (1930)
Turns out the USSC did rule on the 1913 act that included the income tax. See Brushaber vs Union Pacific Railroad, 240 US 1 (1916) The Tariff Act of 1913 referenced in the decision below is the revenue act that contained the income tax laws.
Here's the relevant excerpt from the decision:
The Income Tax provisions of the Tariff Act of 1913 are not unconstitutional by reason of retroactive operation, the period covered not extending prior to the time when the Amendment was operative, nor are those provisions unconstitutional under the due process provision of the Fifth Amendment, nor do they deny due process of law, nor equal protection of the law by reason of the classifications therein of things or persons subject to the tax.
BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.