The legal analysis of the film The Voice of Equality. A case of an axiological gap in tax law

Descripción del Articulo

The author analyzes the film The Voice of Equality, based on the life of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The work focuses on the case of Charles Moritz vs. the Internal Revenue Service, defended by Ginsburg at the beginning of her career. It was disputed whether the income tax assess...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor: Lara Márquez, Jaime
Formato: artículo
Fecha de Publicación:2020
Institución:Universidad Ricardo Palma
Repositorio:Revistas - Universidad Ricardo Palma
Lenguaje:español
OAI Identifier:oai:oai.revistas.urp.edu.pe:article/3694
Enlace del recurso:http://revistas.urp.edu.pe/index.php/Inkarri/article/view/3694
Nivel de acceso:acceso abierto
Materia:cine y derecho tributario
análisis de película
derecho a la igualdad
discriminación de género
igualdad ante la ley
film and tax law
film analysis
right to equality
gender discrimination
equal protection under the law
Descripción
Sumario:The author analyzes the film The Voice of Equality, based on the life of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The work focuses on the case of Charles Moritz vs. the Internal Revenue Service, defended by Ginsburg at the beginning of her career. It was disputed whether the income tax assessment made on Mr. Moritz’s expense deduction was allowable. Under U.S. law, unmarried daughters who were employed outside the home were entitled to deduct guardianship expenses. Mr. Moritz was unmarried, cared for his mother, and was employed outside the home, but he was not a daughter, but a son, which is why the tax office denied the deduction. The lawyer’s strategy was to allege gender discrimination against her client, since the law unfairly presumed that it was the daughters who were responsible for the care of the parents. Her objective was to obtain a declaration of unconstitutionality of Article 214 of the U.S. Tax Code, for violation of the principle of equal protection before the law; and then to sue, case by case, for the unconstitutionality of one hundred and seventy-eight U.S. laws that discriminated against women.
Nota importante:
La información contenida en este registro es de entera responsabilidad de la institución que gestiona el repositorio institucional donde esta contenido este documento o set de datos. El CONCYTEC no se hace responsable por los contenidos (publicaciones y/o datos) accesibles a través del Repositorio Nacional Digital de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación de Acceso Abierto (ALICIA).