> btw: any listers ever heard of s.c. case called _hawaii v midkiff_,
anyone know what it was about...
It involved a tax avoidance scheme by wealthy Hawaiian land owners:
"The legislature concluded that concentrated land ownership was responsible for skewing the State's residential fee simple market, inflating land prices, and injuring the public tranquility and welfare.
"To redress these problems, the legislature decided to compel the large landowners to break up their estates. The legislature considered requiring large landowners to sell lands which they were leasing to homeowners. However, the landowners strongly resisted this scheme, pointing out the significant federal tax liabilities they would incur. Indeed, the landowners claimed that the federal tax laws were the primary reason they previously had chosen to lease, and not sell, their lands. Therefore, to accommodate the needs of both lessors and lessees, the Hawaii Legislature enacted the Land Reform Act of 1967 (Act), Haw. Rev. Stat., ch. 516, which created a mechanism for condemning residential tracts and for transferring ownership of the condemned fees simple to existing lessees."
The Supreme Court ruled that helping the wealthy avoid federal taxes was a legitimate public use. The transfer of the land was inevitable. Taxation of the capital gains obviously was not.