in the first instance predicated upon evidentiary development on the subject — with Respondents, again, ultimately bearing the burden of proof. See supra note 4. 1 . Tax statutes imposing a mandatory minimum but no maximum are not unheard of, albeit they often involve smaller mandatory mínimums. See, e.g., City of Portland v. Cook, 170 Or.App. 245, 12 P.3d 70 (2000) (involving a business license tax of 2.2 percent of adjusted net income, subject to a $100 minimum). 2 . The majority also relies in part on Cope's Estate, 191 Pa. 1, 43 A, 79 (1899), which held that exempting the first $5,000 of an estate from Pennsylvania’s inheritance tax worked a uniformity violation. See id. at 22, 43 A. at 81; see also Saulsbury v. Bethlehem Steel Co., 413 Pa. 316, 320, 196 A.2d 664, 666 (1964) (<HOLDING>). The tax statute challenged here is different
holding a workers compensation statute unconstitutional because it treats persons with asbestosis differently than persons with other occupational diseases and does so without any valid reason holding that an occupational privilege tax levied upon individuals working in the city and earning over 600 annually was nonuniform because persons earning less than that amount were exempted from liability holding that because the amount of the debtors obligation to the government exceeded the amount of their income tax refund the refund did not become property of the estate and could not be exempted holding that the university was not a political subdivision of the state because it had no power to tax or cause taxes to be levied holding that it was not the taxpayers responsibility to pursue the different tax units to which the illegally levied county tax was proportioned as the taxpayer was entitled to recover the full amount of the tax from the county the collecting entity