Supreme Court to decide whether government entities can seize tax delinquent's property and profit
Mister Mets:
This seems to be a clear fifth amendment violation. There's no just compensation.
NewYorkExpress:
Judging by oral arguments, this will be a unanimous verdict in favor of Tyler, but we might get two or more opinions on just how far the court should go.
Tintrlvr:
I generally side with the government on takings cases, but this seems pretty clear-cut in favor of the owner. The most I would say is that the government should also be able to recoup its costs in seizing and selling the property in addition to the debt owed, but should still have to return the net profit, if there is any. Seems like a pretty narrow edge case anyway, so this doesn't have major implications.
NewYorkExpress:
Supreme Court rules unanimously for Tyler, Roberts with the opinion.
Quote
The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled in favor of a 94-year-old woman over her claim that a Minnesota county violated the Constitution by keeping a $25,000 profit when it sold her home in a tax foreclosure sale.
The court concluded unanimously that Geraldine Tyler can pursue her argument that Hennepin County's decision to keep the surplus violated the takings clause of the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment, which requires that the government pay compensation when property is taken.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, in a reference to a passage from the Bible, that taxpayers are only required to pay the government what it is owed.
"The taxpayer must render unto Caesar what is Caesar's but no more," he wrote.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page