Seriously... that is how you read that?
Clarity in communication is desirable. What's the second "that?"
Is it the Supreme Court opinion or your saying "I can't believe it is even legal..." in response to Lisa's belief that Maui County may be the only taxing authority that has a timeshare category?
Last month's linked article about a US Supreme Court opinion is just the Court's latest exposition of the principles which govern legal analysis of a claim that a tax is illegal because it violates the Equal Protection clause. Facts concerning the particular tax classification do not affect the principles of Equal Protection analysis used by the Court. (Sort of like the principles of analysis used by scientists to reach a conclusion in the lab?) The article states:
"The majority held that the Indianapolis program satisfied the rational basis requirement under the 14th Amendment: "
This Court has long held that 'a classification neither involving fundamental rights nor proceeding along suspect lines ... cannot run afoul of the Equal Protection Clause if there is a rational relationship between the disparity of treatment and some legitimate governmental purpose.'" The facts of the case involved a City tax for a new sanitation project that could be paid in a lump sum or over 20 years. The taxpayers who paid the lump sum sued to at least get back a portion of what they paid when the tax was abolished after 4 years and those who paid in installments got completely off the hook for the last 16. The claim that an illegal tax classification affecting Equal Protection was created when the tax was abolished was rejected by both the Indiana Supreme Court and, last month, the SCOTUS.
I thought your response to Lisa's belief that Maui's classification was unique ("I can't believe it is even legal ...") involved a claim of denial of Equal Protection in taxation. If there was another basis to the claim that I am missing, just post it.
Finally, I did not post that a claim against Maui's tax classification would fail. I pointed out that these types of cases rarely are winners because the purpose of any tax ("we need the money") usually takes precedence. Salty