*1 669 sphere, local economic only it is the invid- formity to the system federal tax is not the discrimination, ious wholly arbitrary legitimate purpose legitimate claimed. The act, which cannot stand consistently with purpose state is to Iowa “net in- the Fourteenth Amendment. come” income, with federal taxable resulting advantages outlined above. (Citations omitted) added). (emphasis Since It is a principle familiar that a “statute is suspect classification or fundamental not invalid under the Constitution case,3 because right is claimed taxing Iowa’s might it gone have farther than it did.” statute equal protection survives Kraft’s Katzenbach Morgan, v. 384 U.S. challenge wholly it is arbitrary, unless hav- 1717, 1727, 86 S.Ct. 16 ing L.Ed.2d 839 no rational relation any legitimate (1966) (quoting Ward, Roschen v. 279 purpose. state U.S. Corp., See Hearst 337, 339, S.Ct. 305; Klein, L.Ed. 842; N.W.2d at 451 N.W.2d at (1929)). Bennett, 474; Harden, 446 N.W.2d at N.W.2d at 885. We hold that the income tax statutes question, 422.33, 422.35, Iowa Code foreign
Dividends from §§ subsidiaries invalid under equal protection are taxed differently from those received clauses of either the United States or from domestic subsidiaries because Iowa Constitution. bases “net income” on the taxable income figure reported on the federal income tax We find no error in the district court return. See Iowa Code 422.35. As we § ruling and therefore affirm. said in First National Bank Ottumwa AFFIRMED. Bair, 1977): practical. result is taxpayer
permitted merely lift figures off
the federal return and transfer them to
the Iowa franchise tax return. The De
partment of Revenue receives the benefit regulations interpretations agency.
the federal coupling of Iowa net income with the FIERRO, Appellant, John J. federal formula is convenient for the tax- payer, prevents taxpayer spend- from HOEL, Appellee. ing forms, time and money complex provides state, saving to the allows the No. 89-1570. rely regulation state to on federal and in- Appeals Court of of Iowa. terpretation, provides the state with an inexpensive quick way verifying Dec. 1990. accuracy taxpayers’ returns. We hold the use of the net federal income figure for computing Iowa franchise tax
“net legitimate purpose. income” is a argues
Kraft taxing Iowa’s scheme rationally achieving related to con-
formity system. with the federal This is
because Iowa does not follow the Internal in allowing
Revenue Code a tax credit to
corporations pay foreign taxes for-
eign
However, complete
dividends.
Suspect
Amendment,
guaranteed
generally
3.
classifications
are based on
the First
which are
race, alienage,
origin.
or national
Fundamental
liberty.
considered essential to individual
vote,
rights
right
right
include
Bennett,
(citations omitted).
Upon deciding they wanted to live an Manhattan, began area near Fierro to look for homes in the New York area. various showing prospective After Hoel several sites, home Janan decided to let John con- eventually duct the search. Fierro found $121,000. in York for condo suburban New purchase In finance the Fierro order to money parents, from his borrowed mortgage up. During had contracts drawn process thought Hoel the condo was to However, parents. from Fierro’s upon early presented Fierro visit mortgage and re- Hoel with the contract signature. quested her Hoel refused to sign she wanted to talk it over and stated later, days with her father. Several short- departure, again asked ly before his Fierro sign papers. After several Hoel to more communications Fierro broke off the engagement, March 1988. ring Fierro asked Hoel to return the but Further unsuccessful at- Hoel refused. ring eventually result- tempts to obtain the Smith, Schneider, T. Tarbox of Thomas lawsuit, filing ed in Fierro Stiles, Mumford, Zurek, Schrage, Wimer & seeking ownership to establish the of the Hudson, P.C., Moines, appellant. Des Bridges Bridges Framp- Robert G. & Christakis, Relying on Coconis ton, Moines, appellee. Des (W.D.Ohio N.E.2d 100 Ohio Misc. 1981), the district court ruled that a condi SCHLEGEL, P.J., by and Considered upon engage marriage placed tion HABHAB, JJ., HAYDEN and but express clearly ment must be un en banc. decided donee at the time of deliv derstood had not ery of the Because Fierro DONIELSON, Judge. time expressly stated a condition at the before us is whether Hoel, engagement ring is a conditional or a gift upon delivery. was a Fierro delivery. completed gift upon The district argues engagement ring appeals. He John Fierro court concluded because symbolic parties’ commitment to express placed conditions inherently upon marry and conditioned possession ring at the time was transferred subsequent marriage. He contends their Hoel, was a to Janan couple terminates their en that when a upon delivery. hold an completed gift We must be returned to the gagement, inherently condition- gift and we therefore reverse. al scope equity in this engaged shortly Our of review Fierro and Hoel became R.App.P. 4. is de novo. Iowa We Thanksgiving in 1987. At the time action before of the case and Hoel with review the facts and law proposal, presented Fierro disposition under appropriate platinum setting determine a 1.37 carat diamond in a Medd, 291 $9,000. all the circumstances. Medd v. approximately The news valued at 1980). give While we fami- N.W.2d their shared with court, findings the trial weight to the wedding plans began. ly and friends R.App.P. not bound them. of title does become 14(f)(7). absolute until the occurs.1 See Annotation, Rights in Respect Engage- No other Iowa case has been ad- found Courtship ment Marriage When Does dressing engagement gifts but Iowa Ensue, Not A.L.R.3d 578 One *3 is law well established. explained, unqualified an transfer to the donee gift personal of property Where is proved, asserting is one the was the intent to take effect irre- made on some condition or trust has the vocably, fully by and is executed uncon- establishing burden of or condition delivery, gift ditional it is a valid inter trust. 38 Gifts C.J.S. 65. § and, gift vivos. Such a absolute is [] required carry Plaintiff is to bur the made, gift, once cannot be A revoked. [ ] by den on this a preponderance issue of * * “ * however, may per- be conditioned on the evidence, the not a this is [but] donee, of formance some act the unvarying fixed or standard. What if the condition is not fulfilled the donor pre would be sufficient to constitute a may gift. the recover [] ponderance of the evidence and to sus find the gift theory par- We conditional tain judgment in an case ordinary ticularly appropriate the where, when contested might another, in in not suffice property engagement ring. is an The resting upon addition to the burden the plaintiff case, symbolism gift inherent any particular in presump [ ] of fore- express closes the need to an tions are to be establish overcome...” Hein 176, condition that will Rawleigh Company, marriage W.T. 167 Neb. ensue. 185, Rather, implied the may N.W.2d 190. condition be in imposed by fact or pre- law in order to Shorman, 1050, Frederick v. 259 Iowa unjust vent enrichment. 147 N.W.2d Thomas, Brown Wis.2d The trial the court in case deter- (citations (App.1985) mined, essence, in that no condition on an omitted; added). emphasis footnote Like engagement ring proved can “ex- unless court, property in a Brown contested plicit delivery. the time known” at of involving engagement ring given an case in quoted language from Frederick does contemplation marriage, hold there is (“When require un- conclusion an express no need to establish an qualified proved, transfer to the donee is party will ensue. A meets ”) impose ... and we to bur- refuse such a of establishing the conditional At of a marriage propos- den. the moment gift by by prepon- nature proving al, couples any inclined least to utter gift given derance of evidence that disparaging concerning comments the lon- in contemplation marriage. relationship. gevity of the We believe that requiring an engagement a donor of to we recognize Once an her or his “in state intentions the alterna- gift, is a conditional still unduly unnecessary. is tive” harsh gets gift remains: the condi when tion fulfilled? engagement ring given contempla-
An
The obvious answer is
in
gift
must
to the
impliedly
be returned
tion
is
conditional
However, an
line
jurisdictions
majority
older
of cases
gift.
which have
dealing
general
that the
principle
sidered cases
with the
of an
follows the
donor
engagement ring uniformly
engagement ring
hold that mar-
of an
can
recover
riage
implied
only
is an
condition of the
dissolved
transfer
if the
is
recognized
concerning express
Coconis v.
en
were
1.
Christakis
that an
conditions
made in
gagement ring
inherently
appellant’s
is an
conditional
response
arguments attempt-
("There
dispute
is no
between the
herein
ing
principle
to circumvent
the "fault”
which
contemplation
that
marriage,
disallows the donor the return of the
when
placing
category
thus
it in
of a
"unjustifiably”
engage-
donor
terminates
Misc,
conditioned
70 Ohio
at
...”
ment.
101.)
N.E.2d at
The Coconis court's comments
Fault,
fix,
unjusti-
may
impossible
agreement or
act.
does
not count.
fiably
by the donee.
In other
broken
words,
jurisdictions refuse to enforce
these
Id. at
order of the class, vants, if not of the servant were or summary, engagement In we hold an dependent on their relatives. The fact ring given contemplation marriage of marriage supply, men in short that were gift; impliedly conditional it is a com- rare and above one’s station was travel pleted gift only upon marriage. If the prospects difficult betrothal abbreviated off, reason, wedding for is called whatever Marriages arranged. for women. were capable becoming the of a com- choices were limited to Women’s lifetime pleted gift and must returned to be nunnery. Spinsterhood marriage or a a centuries-long personal tragedy. awas In record our de novo review the be- world, Men, a man’s were because it was us, Fierro made the fore we conclude that likely than women to break much more engagement ring upon the im- gift of the did, he left engagements. When one be- contemplated plied condition that reputation and hind a woman of tainted occur, marriage not return did Hoel would law, in a prospects. The de mini- ruined engagement Because the gesture, gave her the mus occurred, terminated and no Fier- prize. When the ring, as a consolation ring, ro is entitled to the return of the or thing, justice jilted, a seldom man was its value. ring’s to him. Thus required return stated, reverse the For the reasons the rule of law—both the rule of life was proceed- further judgment and remand for saw women as inferiors. opinion. ings in accordance with this concluded, in an The court Id. Aronow REVERSED. setting, fault is irrelevant. breaking of an justifies fact What HAYDEN, Judges except All concur of a sense of engagement? The absence J., who dissents. Dif- Differing musical tastes? humor? HAYDEN, (dissenting). Judge political painfully- fering views? respectfully I dissent. marriages are that made learned fact is earth, They must be background not heaven. in this The additional factual intelligent care and approached pin a case is John had happen grandmother. a decent as- He told Jan- belonged should not without to his party explicitly pin either returned to of success. When surance assurance, they up. rea- him if ever Later when lacks that whatever broke son, placed her the he no condi- be broken. John should received it. The trial on it when she justification Either tions No is needed.
Q73 weighed evi- requirements and considered this were proved The trial court ruled John end- unless a condition was dence. had otherwise. placed ed the and had imposed condition John of mar on the he had ditions as done on riage ring, such a re pin. heirloom explicit quirement must have been in light One court known. has noted us in before this case is situations, in such intricacies conditioned on or require unduly “it is harsh to such was the an unconditional expressed clearly a reservation be un Supreme Court has stated what by donee at of delivery derstood the time appropriate proof burden of should be Christakis, gift.” Coconis 70 Ohio when it is claimed there is a conditional (W.D.Ohio Misc. 435 N.E.2d gift: 1981). Thus, if John had wanted such a unqualified anIf transfer to the donee is gift, condition he should have made asserting one proved, clearly known understood at the on some or condition trust has gave possession time establishing or Janan. trust. There is evidence John was aware of the *5 Shorman, 259 Iowa Frederick clearly express need such a to (1966). Thus, N.W.2d giving type when of a John had gift proven, elements are John has require- made a condition of a proof to show was condi- previous a jewel- ment for of heirloom marriage. tioned ry to If the engage- Janan. The three essential elements for an inter broken, piece ment was of heirloom intent, gift are and delivery vivos donative jewelry After the would returned. en- Stancel, acceptance. Raim v. 339 N.W.2d broken, gagement piece was of heir- Roth, 621, 623 App.1983); Gray v. jewelry promptly loom was returned. (Iowa App.1989). N.W.2d There returned, John wanted the he could is there has been a expressed have such a condition as he did acceptance. and In this situation John jewelry. any with the heirloom Absent actually handed to No- Janan on condition, of a I evidence determine accepted and she it and vember valid giving is a possession. kept in her The re- gift. maining question intent is what John’s prevalence government is a There ring. at the time he Janan the regulations in most areas of rules and our grantor The donative intent is of social life. The matter controlling Raim, consideration. 339 gifts uniquely regulation is suited to and N.W.2d at 623. The donor must make couple responsibility solely by the involved. rights all do pass actual transfer and personal This The court is their business. over the the donee. minion exception Varvar interject accept- should not Varvaris, 800, 803, 124 255 Iowa is v. private legal ed into such a standards situa- An inter vivos circumstances, compelling tion absent Id. operates immediately irrevocably. which not here. are In this case the intention of John When a discusses it is testimony presented. ordinarily public not done in forum. evident from the responsible purchase usually for the Communications at these times word, private by spoken of the insurance on the made in rather payment writing than in or witnessed others. Also was referred parties’ ring.” Finally, a de- Little other than the own at all times as “her evidence Either for the return recollections available. mand or lack of condi- nearly days until after called could assert existence John Thus, allowing majori- engagement. tions a deviation from the off the it is evident rule. In such proposed “no fault” ty’s
case, that has been accom- essentially all proof. shifting is a of the burden
plished in elicitation of versed
Courts are well in such matters as con-
parties’ intentions This would allow each
struing contracts. mer- upon its individual
case to be decided attempts to establish a majority
its. The unnecessary litiga-
bright line test to avoid has arisen so I this situation
tion. observe appear prior Iowa cases
infrequently, no
this issue. acknowledge parties are free to return
I However, proper social
engagement gifts. return, their
etiquette does not demand as a matter of should the courts
neither
law. ring by giving
I determine valid, com- unconditional to Janan is
John trial court I affirm the
pleted gift. would respects.
in all *6 COMPANY PEPSI COLA BOTTLING Employment Whitten of William C. RAPIDS, Appellee, OF CEDAR Bd., appellants. Appeal Inger- & Johnson Shuttleworth Glenn P.C., appellee. soll, Rapids, for APPEAL BOARD Cedar EMPLOYMENT Styron, Appellants. Donald W. SCHLEGEL, P.J., Heard No. 90-611. HABHAB, JJ. HAYDEN and Iowa. Appeals of Court of SCHLEGEL, Presiding Judge. 27, 1990. Dec. Appeal Board Employment Respondents, Styron, appeal a district W.
and Donald by the ruling reversing a decision an adminis- Board which affirmed Appeal appeal finding that the judge’s law trative Bottling Company Pepsi Cola petitioner agree untimely. We Rapids was of Cedar law the administrative the decisions of therefore, and, Appeal Board judge and the court. of the district judgment reverse Pepsi discharged by based Styron was He filed a claim misconduct. allegations of A insurance benefits. unemployment