Law Commons^™

Taxing Civil Rights Gains, Anthony C. Infanti

Anthony C. Infanti

In this article, I take a novel approach to the question of what constitutes a “tax.” I argue that the unique burdens imposed on same-sex couples by the federal and state “defense of marriage” acts (the DOMAs) constitute a tax on lesbian and gay families.

Classifying the DOMAs as a “tax” has important substantive and rhetorical consequences. As a tax, the DOMAs are subject to the same constitutional restrictions as other taxes. This opens them to challenge under the federal constitution’s direct tax clauses and the uniformity clauses present in many state constitutions. Where such constitutional challenges are unavailable or …

Decentralizing Family: An Inclusive Proposal For Individual Tax Filing In The United States, Anthony C. Infanti

Anthony C. Infanti

The debate in the United States over individual versus joint federal income tax filing is at something of a crossroads. For decades, progressive — and, particularly, feminist — scholars have urged us to abolish the joint return in favor of individual filing. On the rare occasion when scholars have described what such an individual filing system might look like, the focus has been on the ways in which the traditional family must be accommodated in an individual filing system. These descriptions generally do not take into account — let alone remedy — the tax system’s ongoing failure to address the …

Dissecting O'Donnabhain, Anthony C. Infanti

Anthony C. Infanti

In O'Donnabhain v. Commissioner, a sharply divided Tax Court allowed a medical expense deduction for some costs related to sex reassignment surgery. This short commentary examines the opinions in the case and concludes that the taxpayer's victory rings hollow.

Dismembering Families, Anthony C. Infanti

Anthony C. Infanti

In this paper, I explore how the deduction for extraordinary medical expenses, codified in I.R.C. section 213, furthers domination in American society. On its face, section 213 probably does not seem a likely candidate for being tagged as furthering domination. After all, this provision aims to alleviate extraordinary financial burdens on taxpayers who already suffer from significant medical problems -- and who, by definition, lack the help of insurance to relieve those burdens. But, as laudable as this goal might be, careful attention to the text and context of section 213 reveals that it does not apply to all taxpayers …