| Posted by Lysander Spooner ® , Sep 27,2003,09:33 | MetroBlab |
"Here's what the U.S. Constitution says in Article 1, Section 9: "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."
Also, see Article 1, Section 2.
Indeed, the requirement for apportionment is pretty strictly limited to taxes on real and personal property and capitation taxes.
It is not necessary to uphold the validity of the tax imposed by the United States that the tax itself bears an accurate label. Indeed, the tax upon the distillation of spirits, imposed very early by federal authority, now reads and has read in terms of a tax upon the spirits themselves, yet the validity of this imposition has been upheld for a very great many years.
We do not think it profitable, however, to make the label as precise as that required under the Food and Drug Act. Congress has the power to impose taxes generally, and if the particular imposition does not run afoul of any constitutional restrictions then the tax is lawful, call it what you will.
Penn Mutual Indemnity Co. v. C.I.R., 277 F.2d 16, at 17, 19-20 (3rd Cir. 1960).
The name by which the tax is described in the statute is, of course, immaterial.
Dawson v. Kentucky, 255 U.S. 288, at 292 (1921).
Black's Law Dictionary defines "Capitation tax" as follows.
Capitation tax. A poll tax (q.v.). A tax or imposition upon the person.
Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition. (In part.)
"At the time of the founding, the idea of a "progressive" income tax was unthinkable. The only taxes on individuals Congress was allowed to assess had to be based on population rather than wealth or earnings."
Herein lies the trickery involved in writing the 16th amendment. Click here for an explanation and history behind the 16th amendment
I've seen no proof that the amendment was indeed ratified, but don't get caught using this argument with the IRS. Why? Because the court ruled that: "[B]y the previous ruling [Brushaber Case] it was settled that the Sixteenth Amendment conferred NO NEW POWER of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning [of our national government under the Constitution] from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged...." Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, 112 (1916)
Many people have been led to believe that the Sixteenth Amendment gave Congress some sort of new power to tax income. In many articles and publications, we find statements to the effect that "the Sixteenth Amendment eliminates the apportionment requirement of taxes on income", leading the reader to incorrectly believe that any so-called "income" tax is a direct tax.
The Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation.
The Sixteenth Amendment did not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects.
The Sixteenth Amendment prohibited the power of income taxation, possessed by Congress from the beginning of our national government under the Constitution, from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged.
[T]he contention that the Amendment treats a tax on income as a direct tax although it is relieved from apportionment and is necessarily therefore not subject to the rule of uniformity as such rule only applies to taxes which are not direct, thus destroying the two great classifications which have been recognized and enforced from the beginning [of the national government under the Constitution], is also wholly without foundation...
Brushaber, supra, at 18.
The exact wording of the Sixteenth Amendment is:
The congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
In Penn Mutual Indemnity Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 32 T.C. 653 at 5659 (1959), the U.S. Tax Court had this to say:
In dealing with the scope of the taxing power, the question has sometimes been framed in terms of whether something can be taxed as income under the Sixteenth Amendment. This is an inaccurate formulation of the question and has led to much loose thinking on the subject. The source of the taxing power is not the Sixteenth Amendment; it is Article I, section 8 of the Constitution. It is important that these provisions be clearly understood; what is required is an understanding of fundamental principles. The familiar statement that at this time we need education in the obvious more than investigation into the obscure (Holmes, Collective Legal Papers, pp. 292-293), although made in a different context, is peculiarly applicable here.
| Posted by Lysander Spooner ® , Sep 27,2003,09:42 | MetroBlab |
"The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income, which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of the tax." - Congressional Record, 3-27-43, page 2580
"Duties and imposts are terms commonly applied to levies made by governments on the importation or exportation of commodities. Excises are 'taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale, or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, and upon corporate privileges.' Cooley, Const. Lim. 7th ed. 680." Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 (1911) 220 U.S. 107
Realizing and receiving income or earnings is not a privilege that can be taxed. "A privilege is whatever business, pursuit, occupation, or vocation, affecting the public, the Legislature chooses to declare and tax as such." Corn et al. v. Fort, 170 Tenn. 377, 385, 95 S.W.2d 620, 623, 106 A.L.R. 647.
| Posted by Lysander Spooner ® , Sep 27,2003,10:02 | MetroBlab |
Is It People? Is It Property? Or Is It Activities?