Sonny Tufts
Member

Guess again. Hylton dealt with a tax on carriages, considered a luxury at the time. Pollock dealt with an income tax, specifically a tax on investment income. Apples and oranges. Since carriages weren't involved in Pollock, there's no way the Court could have overruled Hylton, given the Pollock court's interpretation of the holding in the latter. If anything, Pollock merely expanded the class of direct taxes (which in Hylton were assumed to be capitations and taxes on land) to include taxes on the income from real and personal property. But of course, Pollock's reasoning was later repudiated by the Court itself:

Whose definition? Some crackpot tax protester (a redundant term)? It sure isn't the one the courts use or that the Framers had in mind.

I don't do tax returns; that's what CPA's are for. I advise my clients ahead of time so they can enter into transactions with the most favorable tax outcome that's consistent with their other goals.

Not as the term "direct tax" is used in the Constitution.

Not necessarily. It depends on what the tax base is. If the tax base is not present among the state in accordance with their populations, an apportioned tax will result in different tax rates among the states. That was the issue in the Hylton case, where the tax base was carriages. Suppose States A and B have similar populations and each is expected to produce $1,000 in revenue. But there are 80 carriages in State A and 20 in State B. Each carriage in A is taxed at $12.50 and each in State B is taxed at $50. Hardly fair, is it? And woe be unto the first guy to bring a carriage into State C (assume it's got a population similar to A's and B's). Like the hypothetical carriages, income isn't distributed among the states by population. If two states with similar populations but different per capita income were subject to an apportioned income tax, people in the poorer state would pay a higher tax rate than the folks in the richer state. For example, Massachusetts and Indiana have similar populations, yet the per capita income of Massachusetts is $46,241 while that of Indiana is $30,988. So if the same amount of revenue has to come from each state the taxpayers in Indiana will end up paying at a higher rate.

Only if you believe that an income tax is a direct tax.

Please cite the case that overruled Hylton. The crackpot argument that it's not the wages themselves that are taxable but only the income earned by investing the wages, dividends, and interest was rejected in Lucas v. Earl, in which Mr. Earl was held to be taxable on 100% of his salary. You know that was the case in which the Court said, "There is no doubt that the statute could tax salaries to those who earned them....” Precisely. Yet under your argument the wealthy wouldn't pay tax on their investment income when they first receive it. They'd only pay tax on the income derived from investing the originally-received income. Nice loophole you got there.

Of course it isn't. If the people, through their state legislatures and congressional representatives, don't like a SCOTUS decision on constitutional law they can get an amendment passed that overturns it. This has happened four times, one of which was the 16th, which overturned the result in Pollock, a case you don't seem to understand. The reason it was so unpopular was that it gave a huge exemption to the wealthy whose income consisted chiefly of investment income. You also ignore the fact that even before the 16th Amendment Congress had the authority to tax other types of income, specifically including pay-for-work. How? Because of the broad taxing authority the Founders granted it in Article I, Section 8. And please try to learn what a "direct tax" is as that term is used in the Constitution. It isn't one that paid directly by an individual, as the carriage and gift taxes illustrate. In fact, under current law the only direct taxes are capitations and taxes on real and personal property by reason of ownership. No taxation without representation??? Where in the world do you think the income tax comes from -- a king? It comes from Congress -- you know, those people who are the representatives of the folks who voted for them. The people get whatever level of taxation they allow their representatives to enact.

Instead of displaying your abysmal ignorance for all to see, why don't you learn a little history. The Carriage Tax was collected directly from Mr. Hylton, but that didn't make it a direct tax as that term is used in the Constitution. The gift tax is collected directly from the donor, but it's clear (except to ignoramuses like you) that it's an excise, not a direct tax. The estate tax is collected directly from the decedent's estate, but it's an excise, not a direct tax. The income tax was collected from Mr. Springer,, but SCOTUS said it wasn't a direct tax but was in the nature of a duty or excise. Incidentally, excises and duties aren't necessarily gathered at the border. Where did you come up with that bit of drivel? As far as your anal-retentive objection to the term "geographical uniformity" is concerned, take it up with SCOTUS:

All is not lost. The Dean of the law school issued a memo last Wednesday, which among other things contained a thinly veiled rebuke of Steinbach: The memo also said that Steinbach is currently on leave. Let's hope that becomes permanent. For more info about the memo, see https://davidlat.substack.com/p/dean-jenny-martinez-speaks-out-about

You really are terminally ignorant, with a gob of stupidity to boot. No, the Constitution doesn't prohibit unapportioned taxes. Imposts, excises, and duties don't have to be apportioned; they only have to be geographically uniform. In addition, the 16th Amendment makes it clear to all but the illiterate and terminally dense that a tax on income doesn't have to be apportioned regardless of where the income comes from. Only direct taxes (other than a tax on income, if you still adhere to the moronic view that an income tax is a direct tax) have to be apportioned.

Apparently you are.

In what way? Did the shape-shifting Illuminati cast a spell over the ratifying legislatures? Read the Constitution, numbnut. The only thing it says Congress can't tax is exports.

Nor does it say "The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived (other than wages), without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

Nope. By the end of February 1913 39 states (excluding Ohio) had ratified. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution Nope. First of all, a tax on pay-for-work has never been held to be a direct tax. Second, the only time a federal income tax has been held to be a direct tax was the 1895 Pollock case, but even there the Court limited its holding to investment income (e.g., dividends and interest) and noted that a tax on pay-for-work was constitutional. The outcry for an amendment was to overturn Pollock and subject investment income to the income tax. Since constitutional amendments aren't put to a popular vote, I have no idea whether a super majority of Americans wanted the amendment, but more than a super majority of state legislatures did. President Taft put it this way in his message to Congress:

Even if this were true (and it isn't), 41 other states did. Since only 36 states' ratifications were needed your ignorant claim about Ohio is, like the rest of your posts, garbage.

Cherry picking quotes again, are you? Ellsworth doesn’t speak for all of the Founders. The Springer opinion delved into the history of the direct tax clause: Then there’s the Report on Direct Taxes that Secretary of the Treasury Oliver Wolcott, Jr. prepared in 1796. It surveyed the various types of taxes levied by the states and noted that many of them imposed taxes on the profits of professions, merchants, and manufacturers. Regarding these taxes, the report stated, “It is presumed, that taxes of this nature cannot be considered as of that description which the constitution requires to be apportioned among the States.” https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsp&fileName=009/llsp009.db&recNum=443 Look, there is no consensus on the historical meaning of “direct tax” as used in the Constitution. I could cite a boatload of articles by law professors whose opinions on this issue range all over the place, but I doubt very much that you would ever read any of them (except maybe those by Eric Jensen). The plain fact is that beginning with the Hylton case in 1796 SCOTUS has limited direct taxes to capitations and taxes on the ownership of property.* It has rejected avoidability as the defining characteristic of an indirect tax and has rejected the claim that a tax on pay-for-work is a direct tax.

I seriously doubt that the Trump Toadies in Congress have the constitutional authority to investigate the discretionary prosecutorial authority of a local D.A. What's next, demanding all of the evidence presented the grand jury?

The short answer is that the Supreme Court and every other court in the country have consistently held that wages, without any reduction for living expenses, are income for purposes of the federal income tax. Your apparent belief that a 99 year old legal dictionary has more authority than SCOTUS decisions is really something. I've previously cited you the Reading case in which the court explained why wage earners can't deduct living expenses as if they were comparable to the cost of goods sold deduction, and I've also explained how incredibly difficult it would be to allocate living expenses between income-producing activity and leisure activity, not to mention the need to capitalize certain expenses. I suggest you review that material again. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?517790-President-Trump%92s-tax-plan-keeps-the-socialist-communist-progressive-income-tax-alive/page7

Learn some history. The income tax was authorized by Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the original Constitution. That's why the Civil War income tax was upheld by a unanimous Supreme Court 32 years before the 16th Amendment. The only reason the 16th Amendment was needed was to overturn the 1895 Pollock case which had held that a tax on investment income such as interest and dividends was a tax on the property producing the income and therefore a direct tax that had to be apportioned. The case went out of its way to note that taxes on other kinds of income, including pay-for-work, were excises that don't have to be apportioned.

FACT #1: Wages were taxable before the 16th Amendment because SCOTUS held in 1881 that a tax on wages was not a direct tax. FACT #2: Neither the 16th Amendment nor the Macomber case changed Fact #1. Macomber stated, "For the present purpose, we require only a clear definition of the term "income," as used in common speech, in order to determine its meaning in the amendment, and, having formed also a correct judgment as to the nature of a stock dividend, we shall find it easy to decide the matter at issue. After examining dictionaries in common use (Bouv. L.D.; Standard Dict.; Webster's Internat. Dict.; Century Dict.), we find little to add to the succinct definition adopted in two cases arising under the Corporation Tax Act of 1909 (Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 231 U. S. 399, 231 U. S. 415; Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U. S. 179, 247 U. S. 185), "Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined..." FACT #3: SCOTUS has repeatedly held that pay-for-work is taxable -- e.g., "There is no doubt that the statute could tax salaries to those who earned them....” Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111, 114 (1930); " is broad enough to include in taxable income any economic or financial benefit conferred on the employee as compensation, whatever the form or mode by which it is effected.” C.I.R. v. Smith, 324 U.S. 177 (1945). FACT #4: SCOTUS has characterized the argument that wages aren't income as "frivolous" and an "incredible". In Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (1991), while the majority and dissenters disagreed on the issue of willfulness they all agreed that the argument that wages aren't income is nonsense.

They don't plan to. As proposed the service industry tip compliance agreement is a voluntary tip reporting program for employers. Employers are responsible for their share of FICA taxes even on unreported tips received by their employees. In 2002 the Supreme Court ruled that the IRS is authorized to use an aggregate estimation method when a restaurant underreports its tip income and that restaurants could be held liable for taxes beyond what their individual employees reported for tips. The aggregate estimation method uses overall credit card charges to determine the average percentage tip rate paid by the customers. This rate is then applied to the total sales reported to estimate unreported cash tips. The idea behind the proposed service industry tip compliance agreement program is to give employers in the service industry a way to report tip income without being liable for unpaid FICA taxes. The program would not force customers to do or refrain from doing anything.

That's not surprising, since Congress already had the authority to levy an unapportioned tax on wages and personal earnings. Congress was well aware of the Springer decision, which had held that the income tax was in the nature of an excise or duty and it also knew that the Pollock decision had not overruled Springer with respect to a tax on wages and personal earnings. Indeed, Pollock had expressly recognized that such a tax was not a direct tax, and Brushaber later reaffirmed Pollock in this regard: In its discussion of the severance issue (i.e., could the rest of the 1894 Tax Act be saved if only the part about taxing investment income were stricken), the Pollock majority reiterated its view that an unapportioned tax on pay-for-work was valid: So it's ludicrous to think the 16th Amendment implicitly overruled Springer and turned a tax on pay-for-work into a direct tax. Congress isn't in the habit of cutting itself off from sources of revenue.

The majority held that the stock dividend Mrs. Macomber received wasn't income so that a tax on it wasn't a "tax on incomes" authorized by the 16th Amendment. Accordingly, the case is inapplicable to a situation in which someone receives income, such as pay-for-work. In addition, his claim "The Eisner case confirms the constitutional requirement that “No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.” is still in effect, "notwithstanding the Sixteenth Amendment" is misleading. The actual quote from the opinion is "The Revenue Act of 1916, insofar as it imposes a tax upon the stockholder because of such dividend, contravenes the provisions of Article I, § 2, cl. 3, and Article I, § 9, cl. 4, of the Constitution, and to this extent is invalid notwithstanding the Sixteenth Amendment."

Since English does not appear to be your native language, let me spell it out. "As repeatedly held, this did not extend the taxing power to new subjects, but merely removed the necessity which otherwise might exist for an apportionment among the states of taxes laid on income." This means that the Amendment got rid of any apportionment requirement for taxes on incomes. "removed" = eliminated; got rid of; dispensed with, etc. "It is clear on the face of this text that it does not purport to confer power to levy income taxes in a generic sense -- an authority already possessed and never questioned -- or to limit and distinguish between one kind of income taxes and another, but that the whole purpose of the Amendment was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from apportionment from a consideration of the source whence the income was derived." This means that regarding apportionment there is to be no distinction between types of income taxes. ALL income taxes were relieved from apportionment, and it would be incorrect to subject some income taxes to apportionment by looking at where the income came from.

It did just the opposite. I'll quote from Eisner again: It seems you have difficulty in reading and understanding these passages. To suggest that if a tax on a certain type of income is a direct tax then it has to be apportioned is to be deaf, dumb, and blind. It is to ignore not only what the plain language of the 16th Amendment says (i.e., Congress can tax incomes from whatever source without apportionment) but also to ignore the language from other cases. "This is the text of the Amendment: "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."

You might want to actually read the Eisner case. The majority held that a stock dividend wasn't income at all but rather capital and could therefore not be taxed under the income tax statute as if it really were income. Since in its view a tax on capital would be a direct tax, it would have to be apportioned. So it's clear that all direct taxes, other than taxes on income, must be apportioned. I realize that you think that a tax on income was considered a direct tax when the Constitution was adopted. Most scholars disagree, but one who shares your view in this regard is Professor Eric Jensen. But even he recognizes that due to the 16th Amendment the Direct Tax Clause doesn't apply to a tax on income:

Withholding was actually first introduced in the 1913 Tax Act. It wasn't popular, so it was eliminated after a few years.