Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Garland v. Director of Revenue

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided January 27, 1998No. 79920Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partWhite, Judge

Today the Court holds that a provision of State income tax law drawn word-for-word from the Internal Revenue Code has a different meaning from that embodied in federal law. In doing so, the majority contravenes the clear intent of the legislature, ignores numerous previous decisions of this Court, and exposes Missouri taxpayers to an uncertainly defined, draconian, and legislatively unintended punitive sanction.

The majority concedes (as it must) that the federal interpretation of the term “penalty” is inconsistent with the result reached here. Section 143.091 is clear: “Any term used in…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Robert W. Monday v. United States of America, and Third-Party v. John A. Monday, Third-PartyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1970
  2. J. A. Newsome, Jr. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1970
  3. United States v. Huckabee Auto Co.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1986
  4. Uslife Title Insurance Company of Dallas on Behalf of Lillian v. Mathews v. Paul R. Harbison v. United States of America Acting by and Through the Internal Revenue ServiceCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1986
  5. John P. Emshwiller, Jr. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1977

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API