Druker v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
American legal case
| Druker v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit |
| Full case name | James O. Druker and Joan S. Druker v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue |
| Argued | September 16, 1982 |
| Decided | December 22, 1982 |
| Citation(s) | 697 F.2d 46 |
| Case history | |
| Prior history | 77 T.C. 867 (1981) |
| Court membership | |
| Judge(s) sitting | Wilfred Feinberg, Henry Friendly, Irving Kaufman |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Friendly, joined by a unanimous court |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S Const. amend XIV | |
Druker v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 697 F.2d 46 (2d Cir. 1982),[1] is a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirming the constitutionality of the marriage penalty.
The plaintiffs, James O. Druker and his wife Joan, claimed that the "income tax structure unfairly discriminates against working married couples" in violation of the
equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.[1]
References
- ^ a b Druker v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 697 F.2d 46 (2d Cir. 1982).
External links
- Text of Druker v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 697 F.2d 46 (2d Cir. 1982) is available from: CourtListener Justia OpenJurist Google Scholar
 | This article relating to case law in the United States or its constituent jurisdictions is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
