Affiliation:
1. Duquesne University
2. The University of Mississippi
3. Southern Illinois University
Abstract
ABSTRACTIn 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized the fundamental right to marry in Obergefell v. Hodges. At the same time, the tax code commonly taxes married couples at a higher effective tax rate than their unmarried counterparts. We examine the constitutionality of the penalty on marriage, critically reviewing the justification for the penalty accepted in Johnson v. U.S. in 1976. Our evaluation of the tax system suggests that the marriage tax penalty violates due process and may violate equal protection and the First Amendment for some taxpayers.JEL Classifications: D15; H21; H24; H31; K34.
Publisher
American Accounting Association
Reference33 articles.
1. Barry, V. 2015. Comments: Parsing marriage penalties: The irrationality of tax and government benefit marriage penalty jurisprudence. Journal of Constitutional Law17(4): 1183–1223, at 1186.
2. Bittker, B. I. 1975. Federal income taxation and the family. Stanford Law Review27 (6): 1389–1463. https://doi.org/10.2307/1228181
3. Chemerinsky, E. 1999. Substantive due process. Touro Law Review15: 1501–1534.
4. Cheng, C. , CrumbleyD. L., EnisC., and YurkoA. J. N. 2019. Marriage or money: The disproportionate influence of the dual-earner marriage tax penalty. Working paper, The University of Mississippi.
5. Cheng, D. , CrumbleyD. L., EnisC., YurkoA. J. N., and YurkoJ. P. 2020. Does the marriage tax differential influence same-sex couples' marriage decisions? Journal of Marriage and Family(forthcoming).
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献