Court Upholds Earned Income Tax Credit

The Daily Oklahoman ^ | 07-07-04 | Carmel Perez Snyder

[Osage Orange]

Court upholds earned income tax credit

By Carmel Perez Snyder

Capitol Bureau

Oklahoma's earned income tax credit statute is constitutional, according to a ruling Tuesday by the state Supreme Court.

Oklahoma City resident Jerry R. Fent had challenged the constitutionality of the statute, which provides tax credits to lower-income residents.

"I'll have to confer with my attorney, Bob Keel, after reading the opinion," Fent said. "I can't see how they can legalize giving gifts to people who have never paid taxes. They are not taxpayers. This is simply transferring wealth from one private individual to another."

Chief Justice Joseph Watt, Justices Ralph Hodges, Rudolph Hargrave, Yvonne Kauger, James Winchester and James Edmondson affirmed the lower court ruling that the statute was constitutional and legal. Justice Daniel Boudreau concurred.

Vice Chief Justice Marian Opala and Justice Robert Lavender dissented from the majority opinion.

Credit not a refund

In court documents, Fent argued that the statute permits the use of income tax revenues to make "direct gifts to the poor." Also, he held that the federal earned income tax credit is not a tax refund at all, but rather social welfare legislation.

The state earned income tax credit was passed in 2001, and went into effect in 2002. Tax officials estimated the state would pay $22.5 million in tax credits annually.

Families earning less than $32,000 a year and individuals earning less than $10,000 would be eligible for the state earned income tax credit, which would be 5 percent of what they receive in a federal earned income tax credit, according to the 2001 legislation.

In the majority opinion, the court held that Fent had failed to carry the burden necessary to invalidate the statute.

"The Legislature has authority to create different classes for purposes of taxation," the Court opinion stated. "The classification is reasonable and serves a legitimate public purpose and it operates with reasonable uniformity and equality upon the given class."

[lewislynn]

They have to uphold it. If they didn't it would open a whole new can of worms nationally and federally and they know it.

[rudypoot]

"The classification is reasonable and serves a legitimate public purpose and it operates with reasonable uniformity and equality upon the given class."

You can use this argument for anything the government wants to do. Like setting everyone's tax rate to 95%. Economic equality is achieved when everyone has nothing.

[Osage Orange]

Yes....unfortunately I agree. But I've got a feeling we may be getting closer ( 5 - 10 years ) to defiance of the tax code...by some states.

We shall see..........

[randog]

"The Legislature has authority to create different classes for purposes of taxation," the Court opinion stated. "The classification is reasonable and serves a legitimate public purpose and it operates with reasonable uniformity and equality upon the given class."

TRANSLATION: We don't want you to win and have no good reason to rule against you, so we'll waste everyone's time with this meaningless judicialbabble.

[Flashman_at_the_charge]

TRANSLATION: We just codified class warfare.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

For purposes of taxation? But it is not a tax.

[lewislynn]

it operates with reasonable uniformity and equality upon the given class."

I guess that's "equality upon the given class" paying (they all uniformly pay so they're equal) and then there's the "equality upon the given class" receiving (they all uniformly receive so they're equal)....that's their equality.

[Osage Orange]

I've had a long day....and I've some lingering mental viscosity.

Could you explain your question to me?

Thanks--

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

I was responding to the majority opinion as stated in the article:

In the majority opinion, the court held that Fent had failed to carry the burden necessary to invalidate the statute. "The Legislature has authority to create different classes for purposes of taxation," the Court opinion stated. "The classification is reasonable and serves a legitimate public purpose and it operates with reasonable uniformity and equality upon the given class."

It wasn't really a question directed at you personally. I was questioning their so-called reasoning.

[yankeedame]

"The Legislature has authority to create different classes for purposes of taxation," the Court opinion stated. "The classification is reasonable and serves a legitimate public purpose ...

IOW: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

[searchandrecovery]

"I can't see how they can legalize giving gifts to people who have never paid taxes. They are not taxpayers. This is simply transferring wealth from one private individual to another."

Welcome to Socialist America, my friend. The poor and the rich get fedgov money, the middle class get screwed.

[BenLurkin]

federal earned income tax credit is not a tax refund at all, but rather social welfare legislation.

[BenLurkin]

"The Legislature has authority to create different classes for purposes of taxation," the Court opinion stated.

You are right and the court is ridiculously wrong.

I worry that people are going to lose ALL respect for the courts . . . and then what?

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

I suppose they will try to command our respect as well. I'm sure they will find it hidden in the shadows of our Constitution if the need arises.

[Coleus]

WELFARE!

[Osage Orange]

Got it..!!

Like I said...it's been a long day.

Thanks....