Tax Constitutional Questions in “Obamacare”: National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius in Light of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and Speiser v. Randall: Conditioning a Tax Benefit on the Nonexercise of a Constitutional Right

Authors

John R. Dorocak, California State University, San Bernardino

Abstract

[Excerpt] “The phrase “Tax Constitutional Questions” may seem to be an oxymoron or at least an interesting juxtaposition somewhat akin to the phrase “passive activity” derived from Section 469 of the Internal Revenue Code, which is familiar to tax practitioners, professors, and perhaps others. It has been noted elsewhere that it is seemingly normal that tax professors (and tax practitioners) are somewhat isolated from such weighty issues as constitutional questions.

…

Despite what may be the tax bar’s seeming reluctance to engage in constitutional questions, those questions are nevertheless thrust upon tax practitioners and professors. Perhaps nowhere has the intersection of taxation and constitutional law been clearer than in the recent United States Supreme Court case on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.”

Repository Citation

John R. Dorocak, Tax Constitutional Questions in “Obamacare”: National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius in Light of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and Speiser v. Randall: Conditioning a Tax Benefit on the Nonexercise of a Constitutional Right, 11 U.N.H. L. REV. 189 (2013), available at http://scholars.unh.edu/unh_lr/vol11/iss2/5