Taxation shall be equal and uniform

Transcription

1 Taxation shall be equal and uniform

2

3 The State s argument is that the words Taxation shall be equal and uniform mean that unequal and discriminatory taxation is nonetheless equal and uniform if someone can imagine a legitimate state purpose for the tax.

4 The Plain Meaning of Section 1(a) of Article VIII Prohibits Tax Classifications Which Create Taxes Which Are Not Equal And Uniform

5 and those who are called upon to construe the Constitution are not authorized to thwart the will of the people by reading into the Constitution language not contained therein, or by construing it differently from its plain meaning. The people have the sole power to change or modify the plain language adopted by them. Until that is done, it remains the supreme law of the land, and should be obeyed.

6 Taxes are said, within the meaning of the constitution, to be equal and uniform when no person or class of persons... is taxed at a different rate than are other persons... upon the same value or the same thing, and where the objects of taxation are the same by whomsoever owned, or whatever they be.

7 The franchise tax is imposed in exchange for the privilege of doing business in Texas and is intended to exact a tax commensurate with the value of that privilege. The special deductions, limitations and exceptions for some taxable entities within the calculation of this tax are the antithesis of equality and uniformity.

8 [S]uch a law [is] constitutionally valid if there is a plausible policy reason for the classification, the legislative facts on which the classification is apparently based rationally may have been considered to be true by the governmental decision maker, and the relationship of the classification to its goal is not so attenuated as to render the distinction arbitrary or irrational. The state primarily relies on the Texas Supreme Court opinion of Enron Corp. v. Spring Ind. School District, 922 S.W.2d 931 (Tex. 1996) and the cases cited therein for the proposition that the Texas constitutional provision in article VIII, section 1(a) requiring taxation to be equal and uniform means nothing more than what the U.S. Supreme Court has said equal protection means under the federal constitution.

9 the three cases which the Enron case cited in support of this similar analysis do not have this holding.

10 Section 2(a) of article VIII: "All occupation taxes shall be equal and uniform upon the same class of subjects." THE VERY LANGUAGE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE implies power in The Legislature to classify the subjects of occupation taxes and only requires that the tax shall be equal and uniform on the same class

11

12 No case cited by the State gives a reasoned explanation as to why a tax that treats so many taxpayers unequally and does not even value the object of taxation the same is equal and uniform.

13 The State s Argument Produces The Absurd Result Of Neutering Sections 1(a) and 2(a) of Article VIII and Rendering Them Meaningless

14 The State s argument is that Texans have no more protection with this constitutional provision than they would without this constitutional provision because the protections of a legitimate state purpose are already found in article I, section 3 of the Texas Constitution (the state s equal protection provision).

15 The State s interpretation also eliminates the need for the following words from section 2(a) of article VIII: All occupation taxes shall be equal and uniform upon the same class of subjects.

16 The Austin Court of Appeals said it best in Bullock v. Sage Energy Co., 728 S.W.2d 465 (Tex. App. Austin 1987) the franchise tax cannot be uniform and equal if the value of the privilege is not generally ascertained by the same standard for all taxpayers.

17 Classifications which destroy equal and uniform treatment of the object of the tax are not rational even if they promote a legitimate interest of the legislature. The legislature cannot violate the constitution to promote even a legitimate interest.