Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Leroy and Leona Buttke v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Leroy & Leona Buttke v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 625 F.2d 202 (8th Cir. 1980)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1980-07-09
- Topic
- general
How later courts describe this case
- reading Untermyer to forbid “retroactive application of a wholly new tax”
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Leroy and Leona Buttke v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Authority status
- pending
- Cited by
- 35 opinions
BUTTKE v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,625 F.2d 202(8th Cir. 1980)
LeROY AND LEONA BUTTKE, APPELLANTS, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
APPELLEE.
No. 79-1885.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted April 16, 1980.
Decided July 9, 1980.
M. Carr Ferguson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Gilbert E. Andrews, Michael L. Paup and Karl P. Fryzel, Attys., Tax Division, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for appellee.
Before LAY, Chief Judge, ROSS, Circuit Judge, and LARSON,fn*Senior District Judge.
[2] In title III of the Act, Congress amended the minimum tax for preferential items, 26 U.S.C. § 56-58, by increasing the rate of taxation from ten to fifteen per cent, and reducing the amount of exempted preference items from $30,000.00 or the deduction for regular taxes, to $10,000.00, or one-half of regular tax liability.SeeTax Reform Act of 1976, Pub.L. No.94-455, § 301(a),90 Stat. 1549(codified at26 U.S.C. § 56(a) (Supp. 1980)). The Act was enacted in October, 1976, but was made effective for all tax years after December 31, 1975.SeeTax Reform Act of 1976, Pub.L. No.94-455, § 301(g),90 Stat. 1553(1976),as amended byAct of Oct. 20, 1976, Pub.L. No.94-568, § 3,90 Stat. 2697(1976).
[3] Taxpayers sold real estate for cash in March of 1976. They reported it as a capital gain on their 1976 income tax return, but failed to treat the gain as subject to the minimum tax for preferences. The Commissioner calculated a deficiency according to26 U.S.C. § 56, as amended by the Act. Taxpayers filed for a redetermination inPage 203the tax court. They contended the retroactive application of the Act was discriminatory, harsh and oppressive because theirs was a "once-in-a-lifetime" transaction by persons of modest means.
[4] The tax court held that taxpayers should have anticipated the imposition of a minimum tax because it was in existence at the time they allegedly contracted to sell the real estate. Thus, the retroactive increase was not so harsh or discriminatory as to violate the Constitution.See Welch v. Henry,305 U.S. 134,147,59 S.Ct. 121,125,83 L.Ed. 87(1938);cf. Untermyer v.Anderson,276 U.S. 440,48 S.Ct. 353,72 L.Ed. 645(1928) (retroactive application of wholly new tax invalid).
[5] We have reviewed the briefs and applicable law, and find there was no error committed by the tax court. We affirm on the basis of its well-reasoned opinion,Buttke v. Commissioner,72 T.C. 677(1979).See8th Cir. R. 14.1
[6] ORDER AFFIRMED.