The Case For Why the 90% Tax on AIG Bonuses is Unconstitutional

 
 
March 27, 2009
By 

On March 19, 2009, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 328 to 93 to pass H.R. 1586, which imposes a 90% income tax on bonuses earned by employees who work at a company that received an aggregate of $5 billion in federal TARP bailout funds, including specifically Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. If enacted, the additional tax would be retroactive to January 1, 2009, but any employee who waives or returns the bonus before the end of 2009 would have the surtax waived.

Critics of the bill have raised policy concerns as well as suggestions that the bill may violate the constitutional prohibition on Bills of Attainder and other restrictions on legislation. Because the purpose of the legislation is to strip a specified group of people of their property, even though other nonpunitive options are available, and because the evidence suggests a punitive motive, the bill could be found unconstitutional as a bill of attainder.

In Tax Foundation Fiscal Fact No. 165, "Proposed Tax on AIG Bonuses Raises Constitutional and Policy Concerns," Tax Foundation Tax Counsel Joseph Henchman makes the case for why the AIG Bonus Tax violates the Bill of Attainder Clause and is poor tax policy.

Read Tax Foundation Fiscal Fact No. 165.

Buy this blogger a cup of coffee!

Sizes

About the Tax Policy Blog

Subscribe to Tax Foundation - Tax Foundation's Tax Policy Blog The Tax Policy Blog is the official weblog of the Tax Foundation, a non-partisan, non-profit research organization that has monitored tax policy at the federal, state and local levels since 1937. Our economists welcome your feedback. If you would like to send an e-mail to the author of a blog post, please click on that person's name to locate his or her e-mail address or visit our staff page here.

Monthly Archive

Privacy Policy