McKesson establishes the fundamental principle that when states impose taxes in violation of clearly established constitutional principles, and taxpayers are compelled to pay such taxes before challenging their validity, states are required to provide the taxpayers with meaningful backward-looking relief. In what circumstances will any relief other than a refund be meaningful? Does it depend on the nature of the constitutional violation? On the ability of the state to impose back taxes on the previously favored class of taxpayers? Are there any limitations on states imposing taxes retroactively on a class of taxpayers that has been favored with a tax exemption in the past? Why did the Court reject Florida’s pass-on defense? Is there anything wrong with that defense as a matter of principle? If a taxpayer has not borne the economic burden of a tax, why should it be entitled to a refund? As between the state, which has illegally imposed the exaction, and the taxpayer, who has shifted the burden of the tax to a third party, which party has the stronger claim to the tax dollars? Could the state condition a refund on the taxpayer reimbursing the third parties to whom it passed on the tax?"

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

McKesson is the author of the New Federalist and Federalist papers Although not considered to be a security expert McKesson has written extensively on constitutional law In this paper McKesson analyze... View the full answer