## Facts

- James O. Druker and Joan S. Druker were married during the 1975 and 1976 tax years.
- Each spouse filed a separate federal income tax return, checking the “married filing separately” status.
- Although they filed as married persons filing separately, they intentionally computed and paid tax using the rate schedule for unmarried individuals rather than the higher rate schedule for married persons filing separately under I.R.C. § 1.
- The Drukers attached letters to their returns explaining that they knowingly used the unmarried rate schedule to challenge what they described as unfair tax treatment of two-earner married couples (the “marriage penalty”) on constitutional grounds.
- Before filing, James Druker sought guidance from government and IRS personnel to reduce the risk that their deliberate departure from the statutory rate schedule would be treated as criminal fraud rather than as a test case.
- The IRS issued notices of deficiency, recalculating tax using the married-filing-separately rate schedule and asserting an addition to tax under I.R.C. § 6653(a) for negligence or intentional disregard of rules and regulations.
- The United States Tax Court rejected the Drukers’ constitutional challenge, refused to allow a late election to file joint returns after the due date, and declined to sustain the § 6653(a) addition.
- The Drukers appealed to the Second Circuit; the Commissioner cross-appealed on the penalty issue.

## Issues

1. Whether the federal income tax rate structure in I.R.C. § 1 that can cause some married, two-earner couples to pay more tax than if unmarried violates equal protection principles applicable through the Fifth Amendment.
2. Whether taxpayers who intentionally filed separate returns to mount a constitutional test may later elect to file joint returns after the filing deadline when the challenge fails.
3. Whether the IRS was entitled to the § 6653(a) addition to tax when the taxpayers knowingly used an inapplicable rate schedule to reduce their reported liability.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit held that the challenged rate structure is constitutional and does not violate equal protection as applied through the Fifth Amendment.
- The court affirmed the Tax Court’s refusal to allow the Drukers to make a late joint-return election after intentionally filing separately.
- The court reversed the Tax Court on the penalty question and directed that the § 6653(a) addition to tax be imposed because the underpayment resulted from intentional disregard of the statutory rate provisions.
- Disposition: affirmed in part and reversed in part.

## Legal Principles

- Marital-status distinctions in the federal income tax are reviewed under rational-basis scrutiny unless they directly and substantially interfere with a fundamental right or target a suspect class.
- A tax rule that affects the financial consequences of marriage does not trigger heightened scrutiny merely because it may influence decisions about marriage; the Constitution does not require tax neutrality across all household arrangements.
- Congress may choose among competing tax policy goals—progressive rates, equal treatment among married couples with the same combined income, and parity between married and unmarried taxpayers—even though no rate structure can fully satisfy all goals at once.
- Taxpayers who knowingly compute tax contrary to clear statutory commands to create a test case engage in “intentional disregard of rules and regulations” within the meaning of I.R.C. § 6653(a), even if they disclose their position and act from sincere constitutional motives.
- A deliberate “test case” filing strategy does not entitle taxpayers to a one-way, after-the-fact option to switch to joint filing to reduce liability once the constitutional challenge fails.

## Conclusion

*Druker v. Commissioner* upheld the constitutionality of the “marriage penalty” produced by parts of the I.R.C. § 1 rate structure, rejected the Drukers’ attempt to retroactively elect joint filing after intentionally filing separately to litigate the issue, and required the § 6653(a) addition to tax because the Drukers knowingly used the unmarried rate schedule despite its inapplicability.


Druker v. Commissioner, 697 F.2d 46 (1982)