A.2d 173 (2007). 2 . To illustrate this point, compare two hypothetical casinos located outside of Philadelphia. Casino A’s GTR is $100 million and Casino B’s GTR is $600 million. Casino A would pay a lump sum $10 million municipal local share assessment, whereas Casino B would pay a $12 million municipal local share assessment (2% of its GTR). 3 . Again, compare two hypothetical casinos located outside of Philadelphia. Casino X’s GTR is $100 million and Casino Y's GTR is $400 million. Both casinos will pay a $10 million municipal local share assessment, but Casino X’s effective tax rate (10%) is substantially higher than Casino Y's effective tax rate (2.5%). 4 . See, e.g., Downingtown Area Sch. Dist. v. Chester Cnty. Bd. of Assessment Appeals, 590 Pa. 459, 913 A.2d 194, 201 n.9 (2006) (<HOLDING>); Amidon, 279 A.2d at 53 (holding that the
holding that unlike the uniformity clause the united states constitution does not require equalization across all potential subclassifications of real property holding that entitlement to benefits is a property interest protected by the due process clause of the fifth amendment to the united states constitution holding the exclusion did not violate the equal protection clause of the wyoming constitution or the fourteenth amendment to the united states constitution holding that the north dakota constitution is a document of limitations upon the state government unlike the united states constitution which is a grant of power to the federal government holding that the contracts clause article i section 10 clause 1 to the united states constitution does not apply to the actions of the federal government