I think that is a pretty narrow reading of the clause. Certainly, this law is meant to punish–it is not being equally meted out amongst the population…but only to a narrow few that this law seeks to avenge itself on.
One more point in 1994 United States v. Carlton provided for retroactive tax law as constitutional…but Scalia makes the suggestion that the court has used the following…“Although there is not much precision in the concept “‘harsh and oppressive,’” which is what the Court has adopted as its test of substantive due process unconstitutionality in the field of retroactive tax legislation.”
My question is whether or not a retroactive tax law…that seeks to punish a narrow few, would be closer to their finding in United States v. Carlton, which upheld the law, or whether or not it would seek other rulings that found the contrary to be true.
Congress is going about this the wrong way. A new tax is not necessary. All they need to to is tell these execs that if they accept these bonuses, a team of IRS agents will begin pouring over their tax returns since they worked that summer job at McDonalds, and they’d get the money back another way…probably send a few of them to jail in the process.
Matt, we don’t send tax cheats to jail, we send them to Washington to serve Obama.
But that woudn’t have the benefit of having the population look the other way–at the evil corporate doers–and instead have the population look at the politicians that held their hand the entire way–until it was time to CYA and bail.
Congress is going about this the wrong way. A new tax is not necessary. All they need to to is tell these execs that if they accept these bonuses, a team of IRS agents will begin pouring over their tax returns since they worked that summer job at McDonalds, and they’d get the money back another way…probably send a few of them to jail in the process.
Maybe Tim Geithner could lead that effort personally!
Just sayin’, it’s always smart to make use of someone’s strengths…