NHL Players Ass’n v. City of Pittsburgh, 2025 Pa. LEXIS 1516 (September 25, 2025) Wecht, J.
Judges: TODD, C.J., DONOHUE, DOUGHERTY, WECHT, MUNDY, BROBSON, McCAFFERY, JJ. Justices Dougherty, Mundy, Brobson and McCaffery join the opinion. Justice Donohue files a concurring opinion in which Chief Justice Todd joins. Justice Mundy files a concurring opinion.
Opinion by: WECHT
Since 2005, the City of Pittsburgh has collected a three percent tax on income that non-Pittsburgh residents earn while performing at one of the City’s publicly funded sports stadiums. The courts below held that this so-called “jock tax” unconstitutionally discriminates against nonresidents in violation of the Uniformity Clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution. We agree.
Here, the City does not provide concrete reasons that would justify taxing nonresident athletes and entertainers more than resident athletes and entertainers. Instead, the City once again argues that the facility fee “does not impose an unequal tax burden on nonresidents” because it actually equalizes the tax burdens of resident and nonresident performers. Residents who perform at the stadiums are taxed three percent of what they earn (one percent to the City and two percent to the School District), and now—because of the facility fee— nonresidents also pay a three percent tax. The City maintains that a tax which equalizes the burdens between two groups of taxpayers cannot violate the Uniformity Clause.
We agree with the Athletes that the facility fee is unconstitutional for the same reason that the tax we struck down in Danyluk v. Bethlehem Steel Co.44 was unconstitutional. Danyluk involved a $10 “occupational tax” that the City of Johnstown imposed upon nonresidents who engaged in an occupation within the city. Johnstown residents were not subject to the occupational tax, although they did pay a $10 per capita tax that nonresidents did not have to pay. Nonresidents challenged the occupational tax on Uniformity Clause grounds, arguing that the tax unconstitutionally singled out nonresidents.
178 A.2d 609 (Pa. 1962).
Residence cannot be made the basis of discrimination in taxation of persons engaged in the same occupation or profession. To permit such distinction would be contrary to the well-established principle that the test of the validity of a classification is whether it produces diversity in results or lack of uniformity in its operation either on the given subject of tax or the persons affected as payers. Biddle Appeal, 390 Pa. 460, 135 A.2d 915 (Pa. 1957). Here the basis of the classification is unreasonable and is violative of [the Uniformity Clause] of the Pennsylvania Constitution.
Because the two percent Pittsburgh School District tax cannot be used to justify the facility fee in our Uniformity Clause analysis, and because the City of Pittsburgh has not supplied a “concrete justification”50 for treating resident athletes and entertainers differently from nonresident athletes and entertainers, we agree with the lower courts that the facility fee is unconstitutional.
We affirm.
Justices Dougherty, Mundy, Brobson and McCaffery join the opinion.
Justice Donohue files a concurring opinion in which Chief Justice Todd joins.
Justice Mundy files a concurring opinion.
Concur by: DONOHUE; MUNDY
· City of Pittsburgh collects a 3% tax on income that non-Pittsburgh residents earn while performing at one of the City’s publicly funded sports stadiums.
· The Courts below held that the so called “jock tax” unconstitutionally discriminates against residents in violation of the Uniformity Clause of the Pennsylvania constitution.
· The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania agreed.
