Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 16,500+ case briefs...

Druker v. Commissioner

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
697 F.2d 46 (1983)


Facts

James and Joan Druker (plaintiffs) were married but filed their tax returns separately. For their 1975 and 1976 taxes, the Drukers paid taxes based on the rate for unmarried people, as opposed to the higher rate for those that were married but filing separately. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) (defendant) ruled that the Drukers were subject to the higher rate for married couples. The Drukers challenged the determination in United States Tax Court, arguing that a higher rate solely on account of them being married violated their right to equal protection under the laws. The tax court ruled in favor of the IRS. The Drukers appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Friendly, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 419,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 16,500 briefs, keyed to 223 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Questions & Answers


Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial