From our private database of 35,600+ case briefs...
Lunding v. New York Tax Appeals Tribunal
United States Supreme Court
522 U.S. 287, 118 S. Ct. 766 (1998)
Facts
Christopher Lunding was a Connecticut resident who worked as a lawyer in New York. Christopher was required to make alimony payments to a former wife, who was also a Connecticut resident. In 1990 Christopher and his current wife, Barbara (plaintiffs), filed a nonresident New York income-tax return, which indicated that 48 percent of Christopher’s income was attributable to New York. On their income-tax return, the Lundings deducted 48 percent of Christopher’s alimony payments. This deduction violated New York Tax Law § 631(b)(6), which disallowed nonresident taxpayers from taking an income-tax deduction for alimony payments. New York resident taxpayers, however, were allowed to take income-tax deductions for alimony payments. The Audit Division of the New York Department of Taxation and Finance denied the deduction and assessed a deficiency against the Lundings. The Lundings appealed, arguing that § 631(b)(6) violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution by discriminating against nonresidents. The New York Court of Appeals upheld § 631(b)(6), reasoning that alimony payments were personal rather than business expenses and were unrelated to New York. The court concluded that the personal expenses of a nonresident should be deducted in the nonresident’s home state. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (O’Connor, J.)
Dissent (Ginsburg, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 618,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,600 briefs, keyed to 984 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.
