endar quarter for a particular employer if they earned at least $50 in cash wages and either (a) worked at least 24 days for that employer in the current quarter or (b) had worked for the employer on 24 days or more and had earned cash wages of $50 or more in the preceding quarter. Under this definition of a "regular" worker, most non-farm domestic employees who are hired on a weekly or monthly basis will be covered, while most part-time workers, and all casual or intermittent workers, will be excluded from coverage. . . . On the other hand, the 26-day requirement was reduced to 24 days to permit coverage. of the domestic worker who has 'a twice-a-week job,' but who misses 1 or 2 days in a 3-month period." Sen. Rep. No. 1669, 81st Cong., 2d Sess., 2 U.S. Code Cong. Serv. 3287, 3302 (1950). We note that the administrative difficulties would be much greater in collecting tax from employers of domestic workers, who probably are more numerous than their employees, than collecting tax from industrial employers, who typically employ a substantial number of employees. The expenses of collection could conceivably equal or exceed the tax collected. In addition it would be unfair to persons who only worked occasionally to collect tax from them when there was little hope that they would ever be eligible for coverage. The report also shows that Congress was not being arbitrary in choosing a 24-day requirement. In 1954 Congress further expanded coverage. It had experimented with coverage of domestic workers and presumably determined that less rigid restrictions would sufficiently serve its purposes. It stated: "[The amendment] would delete the unnecessary and compli- "More of the domestic workers who would continue to be Thus, Congress realized that not all regularly employed domestic workers were covered, such as those who are employed by several em ployers for a few days a quarter, but nevertheless determined the class it wished to cover. A law is not invalid because a classification made by the legislature is imperfect. Jefferson, supra. Finally, it appears that the statistics which the plaintiff stresses at great length stop short of refuting the legislative expression that those who would no longer have coverage would be a minimal group not primarily concerned with the matter of making a living from the performance of domestic work. The thrust of the plaintiff's statistics is that the chief component human group in the domestic worker segment of the labor market are poor black women. We have no reason to believe this may not be so but the statistics tendered to us did not go forward to show that any significant number of those who engaged in this manner of earning a livelihood were deprived of coverage by virtue of quarterly coverage requirement. Lack of coverage resulting from the failure to report whether because of the employer not wanting to do so or the reluctance of the employee to become involved in reporting her wages to the government is no basis for holding the classification as established to be in violation of the constitution. C. Irrebutable Presumption Plaintiff argues that the legislative history shows that Congress' purpose in enacting the limitations on coverage was to cover regularly employed domestic servants and that it was improper for Congress to presume irrebutably that anyone who did not meet the statutory standards was not regularly employed. The Supreme Court rejected a very similar argument regarding a minimum period of marriage requirement of a different section of the Social Security Act in Weinberger v. Salfi, supra, distinguishing such cases as Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632 (1974), and Vlandis v. Kline, 412 U.S. 441 (1973), upon which plaintiff relies. The majority, in an opinion written by Mr. Justice Rehnquist, set forth the proper principles to apply in considering constitutional challenges to this type of social welfare legislation. 43 U.S.L.W. at 4991. We have endeavored to apply those principles in part II. B of this opinion. The Court further stated: "The question is whether Congress, its concern having been reasonably aroused by the possibility of an abuse which it legitimately desired to avoid, could rationally have concluded both that a particular limitation or qualification would protect against its occurrence, and that the expense and other difficulties of individual determinations justified the inherent imprecision of a prophylactic rule... [The] duration-of-relationship requirement represents not merely a substantive policy determination that benefits should be awarded only on the basis of genuine marital relationships, but also a substantive policy determination that limited re- As noted by Mr. Justice Rehnquist in his dissent in LaFleur, almost any law could be in some sense characterized as an irrebutable presumption. In the normal case, well established standards of equal protection and due process should be applied to determine the validity of a Congressional enactment. It is only an unusual case where a statute will be declared invalid because of an improper irrebutable presumption, and the same result would not be reached applying normal equal protection and due process standards. D. Minimum Earnings Requirement As was discussed earlier, the amended complaint asked for a declaration that the minimum earnings requirement for a certain number of quarters as such was unconstitutional. By applying the well established standards discussed above, the argument lacks substantiality. III. Mandamus Plaintiff's complaint seeks a writ mandating the Secretary of the Treasury and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to require the reporting of all wages paid domestic servants regardless of whether they exceed the statutory minimums. According to plaintiff this would ensure greater compliance with the law and largely eliminate the problems of incomplete records such as she had. Plaintiff may or may not be correct in her analysis regarding the efficacy of these measures, but the Secretary has a large degree of discretion in determining the proper measures to take to enforce the tax laws. In addition, enforcing these reporting requirements would present many of the administrative difficulties which caused Congress to exclude employees of certain employers from coverage. For the reasons hereinbefore set forth, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. EMPLOYER/EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIPS SECTIONS 209 and 210(j) (2) (42 U.S.C. 409 and 410(j) (2))-EMPLOYER/EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP-FAMILY EMPLOYMENT 20 CFR 404.1004(c) SSR 76-13a Where claimant, an applicant for old-age insurance benefits, performed domestic services for remuneration in the household of her sister but such remuneration was subsequently returned in toto to the sister, and where claimant was not supervised, controlled or directed by the sister in the performance of the household duties and no contract of employment existed between claimant and her sister, held, claimant is not entitled to old-age insurance benefits since the domestic services were not performed within a bona fide employer/employee relationship as defined in section 210(j) (2) of the Social Security Act, the household arrangement having been motivated by mutual benefits and family ties, and the remuneration paid to the claimant did not constitute wages within the meaning of section 209 of the Act. The claimant, born on March 21, 1902, filed an application for oldage insurance benefits on January 16, 1973, indicating that she had been employed by her sister from January 1972 through June 1972 and since October 1972. She revealed in an accompanying statement dated January 16, 1973, that her sister paid her $100 per month for housekeeping services. The claimant worked as a teacher for many years, but a record of her earnings maintained by the Social Security Administration dated February 2, 1973, reveals that her teaching earnings were covered under the Social Security Act only during the years 1956, 1957, 1958 and 1959 during which time she acquired 9 quarters of coverage. From August 1959 until her retirement in May 1971, the claimant worked for the United States Government in Japan, teaching dependents of United States servicemen. The claimant had intended to teach at a private school in the United States after the completion of her teaching duties in Japan in order to secure the four quarters of coverage she required for entitlement to old-age insurance benefits. When the claimant returned to the United States in July 1971, however, she was blind in her left eye because of an unsuccessful cataract operation performed in March 1971, and was also going blind in her right eye. As a result, she was unable to teach or drive to any place to do gainful work. The claimant lived at her home in Pennsylvania during the summer of 1971, but in the fall of 1971 she went to live with her sister in New Jersey so that she could be near an eye specialist. The sister also was a school teacher and the claimant did housework while her sister was teaching. The sister indicated on a statement dated January 16, 1973, that she employed the claimant on January 1, 1972, through necessity, because she worked full time and needed someone to care for the household. She stated that she paid all the household expenses, but did not claim the claimant as a dependent on her tax returns. During the 3 summe months, she and the claimant vacationed in Pennsylvania. Contact made with the claimant on January 16, 1973, revealed tha she and her sister were the only occupants of the household. She indi cated that there was no contractual agreement, written or oral, be tween her and her sister and that her sister did not control or direct he because she knew what had to be done. A Report of Contact made with the claimant on February 12, 1973, indicates that she performed the same work for her sister from September 1971 through December 1971 without wages and that there was no specific reason why her sister suddenly required a housekeeper. A Statement of Employer signed by the sister on January 17, 1973, indicates that wages of $300 were paid to the claimant during each of the calendar quarters ending March 1972, June 1972, December 1972 and March 1973. Cancelled checks in the amount of $300 made out to the claimant dated April 1, 1972, June 30, 1972, December 30, 1972, and April 3, 1973, and cancelled checks payable to Internal Revenue dated April 1, 1972, June 30, 1972, December 31, 1972, and April 2, 1973, signed by the sister, were submitted as evidence that the wages were paid and reported timely. An Employment Relationship Questionnaire dated November 1, 1973, signed by the sister, indicates that the claimant cleaned, washed and ironed, cooked meals and did dishes. It was stated that she expected the work to be done when she came home from work and to be done the way she wanted it. The claimant was allegedly under her control, supervision, and direction and was not free to work for others. A Domestic Service Questionnaire signed by the claimant on April 3, 1974, indicates that it was agreed by her and her sister that she would do all the light housework. She allegedly worked 7 days a week about 4 hours a day, but indicated that there were no specific hours in which she was required to do the work. She stated that her sister had the right to instruct her, but that it wasn't necessary since she knew how to do the work. The employment relationship was said to have ended on April 1, 1973, because she had an eye operation and was no longer able to work after that date. After April 1, 1973, the sister hired another person to do the housework on a part-time basis. At the hearing before the Appeals Council, the claimant testified that she and her sister, who is six years younger, had an oral agreement. She stated that her hours were flexible, but that she always had dinner ready when her sister came home from work. She indicated that she sometimes had difficulty performing the work, but kept at it in order to acquire the quarters of coverage. The claimant admitted that she did similar work for her sister during the months prior to January 1972, when she was not paid. It was stated that for many years her sister had a woman come every two weeks to help with the housework, but that the woman died about 1970. After the woman's death, the sister was said to have had no regular lady, but once in a while had someone come in. The claimant testified before the Appeals Council that she deposited the checks received from her sister into her checking account. She was |