Opinion ID: 1200134
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Taxpayer's Rights

Text: By placing emphasis on the issue of whether the decision in Bacchus Imports v. Dias, 468 U. S. 263 (104 SC 3049, 82 LE2d 200) (1984) [3] should be given a retroactive application, the majority disguises the real issue: Which is more important in Georgia  the state's right to protect the ill-gotten gains of the treasury or the taxpayer's right to relief after a clear violation of the taxpayer's constitutional rights? See Tatarowicz, Right to a Refund for Unconstitutionally Discriminatory State Taxes and Other Controversial State Tax Issues Under the Commerce Clause, 41 Tax Lawyer (Fall 1987). The majority opinion concludes that the state's right to protect its treasury is more important; however, I believe that the right of the taxpayer is more important. [4] The majority found, and I agree, that the purpose and effect of the statute was simple economic protectionism, which is virtually per se invalid under the Commerce Clause of the U. S. Constitution. Thus, I concur in the part of the majority opinion that affirms the trial court's holding that the pre-amendment statute was unconstitutional; however, there are several separate and distinct statutory and constitutional issues involved in this case that clearly distinguish it from the cases that have been cited by the majority. [5] Therefore, I strongly disagree with the majority's conclusion that prospective application of the decision is appropriate.