Reference no: EM133015263

Use legal language when developing your answer.

Analyze this case and make a sound and valid argument, stating legal reasoning, along with a final decision.

Case: Fitzgerald Vs. Racing associates.

Before 1989, Iowa permitted only one form of gambling: parimutuel betting at racetracks. A 1989 Iowa statute authorized other forms of gambling, including slot machines on riverboats. The 1989 law established that adjusted revenues from riverboat slot machine gambling would be taxed at graduated rates, with a top rate of 20 percent. In 1994, Iowa enacted a law that authorized racetracks to operate slot machines. That law also imposed a graduated tax upon racetrack slot machine adjusted revenues, with a top rate that started at 20 percent and would automatically rise over time to 36 percent. The 1994 enactment left in place the 20 percent tax rate on riverboat slot machine adjusted revenues.

Contending that the 1994 legislation's 20 percent versus 36 percent tax rate difference violated the federal Constitution's Equal Protection Clause, a group of racetracks and an association of dog owners brought suit against the State of Iowa.

Is it fair to have a difference in taxes for the riverboat and racetrack slot machines? Why or why not? In addition to answering the questions develop a detailed IRAC for this case.