Ted Cruz may not be the constitutional conservative he claims to be

[Skylar]

Eisner destroys your argument. As it makes it clear that the 16th amendment removed apportionment requirements on taxes on income.
.

The conclusion of the court is as follows:

"Thus, from every point of view we are brought irresistibly to the conclusion that neither under the Sixteenth Amendment nor otherwise has Congress power to tax without apportionment a true stock dividend made lawfully and in good faith, or the accumulated profits behind it, as income of the stockholder. The Revenue Act of 1916, in so far as it imposes a tax upon the stockholder because of such dividend, contravenes the provisions of article 1, 2, cl. 3, and article 1, 9, cl. 4, of the Constitution, and to this extent is invalid, notwithstanding the Sixteenth Amendment." -Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920)

The fact is, Direct taxes are still required to be apportioned as pointed out in Eisner v. Macomber. And in BROMLEY VS MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124 (1929), the Court emphatically stated “As the present tax is not apportioned, it is forbidden, if direct.”

And let us not forget that even Justice Roberts stated in the recent Obamacare case:


"The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several States."


The truth is, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 has never been repealed and declares:


No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

Any tax which takes the form of a direct tax, regardless of what name you attach to the tax, requires an apportionment.


JWK

Eisner finds that pro-rata dividends aren't income....as nothing is derived. No cash, no property, no larger proportion of ownership of the company. Nothing.

Again, why lie? Its not like we can't read the Eisner ruling and see you're flagrantly misrepresenting it:

"Throughout the argument of the Government, in a variety of forms, runs the fundamental error already mentioned—a failure to appraise correctly the force of the term "income" as used in the Sixteenth Amendment, or at least to give practical effect to it. Thus, the Government contends that the tax "is levied on income derived from corporate earnings," when in truth the stockholder has "derived" nothing except paper certificates which, so far as they have any effect, deny him [or "her" — in this case, Mrs. Macomber] present participation in such earnings. It [the government] contends that the tax may be laid when earnings "are received by the stockholder," whereas he has received none; that the profits are "distributed by means of a stock dividend," although a stock dividend distributes no profits; that under the Act of 1916 "the tax is on the stockholder's share in corporate earnings," when in truth a stockholder has no such share, and receives none in a stock dividend; that "the profits are segregated from his [her] former capital, and he has a separate certificate representing his [her] invested profits or gains," whereas there has been no segregation of profits, nor has he any separate certificate representing a personal gain, since the certificates, new and old, are alike in what they represent—a capital interest in the entire concerns of the corporation."

Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920)


With the same ruling finding that the 16th amendment explicitly removes apportionment requirement on income.

Every time you lie....I quote the ruling. And you lose again. See, John.......you're fucked. As your argument requires an ignorant audience. And we're not ignorant. Any of us can just read the passages in the Eisner ruling that you desperately pretend don't exist. And even more desperately pretend we don't know about.

Pretend away. You lost the moment you ignored your own source.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There is no such thing as a ‘constitutional conservative’ – they’re actually un-Constitutional conservatives, given their ignorance of, or contempt for, the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It is disappointing to see one of our self-anointed "constitutional conservatives", meaning Ted Cruz, is found to fall far short of constitutional conservatism when it comes to tax reform.

Surely a "constitutional conservative" knows that proposing a flat tax on incomes would not close down the IRS as Cruz claims, but more importantly, it perpetuates today's violation of our Constitution which requires any direct tax to be apportioned among the States.

The very purpose of requiring direct taxes to be apportioned was to insure that Congress, if and when it decided to enter the States and tax the citizens directly, the tax would turn out to be an equal per capita tax and not the socialist type of tax which Cruz proposes, which is to seek out and place a larger tax burden upon the most productive members of our society. Cruz's tax plan is more in line with what Bernie Sanders would support than what our founders intentionally rejected.

keep in mind that the rule requiring direct taxes to be apportioned is still very much part of our Constitution and any “constitutional conservative” knows this.

Shortly after the 16th Amendment was adopted the Court in Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920), a case dealing with an income tax and direct vs. indirect taxation, the tax was struck down as being direct and not apportioned. The Court stated:

A proper regard for its genesis, as well as its very clear language, requires also that this amendment shall not be extended by loose construction, so as to repeal or modify, except as applied to income, those provisions of the Constitution that require an apportionment according to population for direct taxes upon property, real and personal. This limitation still has an appropriate and important function, and is not to be overridden by Congress or disregarded by the courts.


--- cut ---

Thus, from every point of view, we are brought irresistibly to the conclusion that neither under the Sixteenth Amendment nor otherwise has Congress power to tax without apportionment a true stock dividend made lawfully and in good faith, or the accumulated profits behind it, as income of the stockholder. 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.


A few years later in another case dealing with income taxation and direct vs. indirect taxation, in BROMLEY VS MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124 (1929), the Court emphatically stated “As the present tax is not apportioned, it is forbidden, if direct.”

And let us not forget that even Justice Roberts stated in the Obamacare case:


The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several States.


The truth is, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 has never been repealed and declares:


No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

So, how may Congress tax “incomes” without the tax being a direct tax which requires apportionment? The answer to this is found in In Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, (1911). In Flint the court confirmed Congress could impose an excise tax on the privilege of being a corporation making it an indirect tax and not having to apportion it, and the amount to be paid by each tax payer was measured from the profits realized under the privilege granted by government.


This is how a tax on incomes can be laid without having to apportion the tax ___ the tax is not a generically named “income tax” which is not mentioned in our Constitution but an excise tax which is one of the specifically named taxes found in our Constitution and does not require apportionment, rather, it requires uniformity throughout the United States when laid and every “constitutional conservative” ought to know this.

The bottom line is, the 16th Amendment merely confirmed what was found by the Court in Flint, that Congress could lay and collect a tax on income without having to apportion it. However, the amendment by its crystal clear wording did not create a generically named “income tax”.


Cruz’s tax plan intentionally keeps alive the socialist friendly tax calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other lawfully earned incomes. Real tax reform is found in the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment which begins as follows:

“SECTION 1. The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money.


NOTE: these words would return us to our founding father’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN as they intended it to operate! They would also end the failed experiment with allowing Congress to lay and collect taxes calculated from lawfully earned "incomes" which now oppresses America‘s economic engine and robs the bread which working people have earned when selling their labor!

JWK


“Honest money and honest taxation, the Key to America’s future Prosperity“ ___ from “Prosperity Restored by the State Rate Tax Plan”, no longer in print.

Wrong.

This is further evidence that conservatives are not ‘constitutional,’ given their ignorance of the Constitution’s case law:

‘Protestors sometimes say that Supreme Court cases have defined income narrowly, to include only some specific type of income, such as corporate gain or profit. These arguments invariably rely on taking the Supreme Court's remarks out of context. For example, in the frequently cited case of Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920), the Supreme Court considered the taxability of a "stock dividend" -- that is, a dividend that was not a cash payout, but that simply gave corporate shareholders some additional shares of stock for each share that they already owned. Because such a "stock dividend" has no real effect -- it just divides the same corporate pie up into more slices -- the Supreme Court held that it was not taxable. Naturally, in the course of deciding a case about such a corporate context, the Supreme Court made some remarks that were appropriate to that context, such as noting that, in the corporate context, income would be "a gain, a profit, something of exchangeable value, proceeding from the property, severed from the capital."


But these remarks were not a comprehensive definition of income in all contexts, and, whenever the Court has given such a comprehensive definition, it has been broad enough to include wages. Indeed, in the very same case, the Supreme Court gives a definition: it says that "'Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined,’ provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets." This definition clearly includes wages, which are a "gain derived from . . . labor." More recently the Court stated the matter even more broadly: it said that Congress intended the income tax statute to exercise "the full measure of its taxing power," so that the statute should be read to cover all income that may constitutionally be taxed, and it suggested that "income" would include all "accessions to wealth." Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 246 (1955). Again, that would include wages.


So you can't just look at a stray sentence or sentence fragment from a Supreme Court case that was limited to a particular context. When the Supreme Court has actually defined the term "income," the definition has always been broad enough to include wages.’

Income Tax Page

 

[martybegan]

Didn't the 16th amendment handle this?

The 16th Amendment does not declare that "Congress shall have power to lay and collect direct taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." It merely grants 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." The constitution also commands "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

So, how may Congress tax “incomes” without the tax being a direct tax which requires apportionment? The answer to this is found in In Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, (1911). In Flint the court confirmed Congress could impose an excise tax on the privilege of being a corporation making it an indirect tax and not having to apportion it, and the amount to be paid by each tax payer was measured from the profits realized under the privilege granted by government.


This is how a tax on incomes can be laid without having to apportion the tax ___ the tax is not a generically named “income tax” which is not mentioned in our Constitution but an excise tax which is one of the specifically named taxes found in our Constitution and does not require apportionment, rather, it requires uniformity throughout the United States when laid and every “constitutional conservative” ought to know this.

The bottom line is, the 16th Amendment merely confirmed what was found by the Court in Flint, that Congress could lay and collect a tax on income without having to apportion it. However, the amendment by its crystal clear wording did not create a generically named “income tax” nor does it declare a direct tax may be laid on incomes without apportionment.


JWK



If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property. POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)

This is the same acrobatics progressives use to justify things that are in the constitution being ignored. The 16th allows an Income tax, without State apportionment, and congress can pass laws making this so. I don't see where the other view has a leg to stand on.

The 16th Amendment was not intended to, nor does it, repeal that portion of the Constitution which requires "direct taxes" to be apportioned.

When proposed, on June 17th 1909, the 16th Amendment originally read as follows:

“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect direct taxes on incomes without apportionment among the several states according to population.”

This was later changed, June 28th, to:

"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."

The direct tax allowance on incomes as originally proposed was removed! So, it is crystal clear, from the legislative history, that the Amendment was not intended to, nor does it by its plain language, remove the protection that “direct taxes” are still required to be apportioned. And this is confirmed by the Supreme Court cases I cite at the top of the page.

The simple truth is, if Congress lays a tax which takes the form of a direct tax, it is still required to be apportioned. The only question remaining is, what did our founders considered to be direct taxes when providing the rule of apportionment as a protection?

Keep in mind our founders were fully aware of the destructive and oppressive nature of direct taxation. In fact, this issue was touched upon by Representative Williams during a debate on Direct Taxes on January 18th, 1797:

"History, Mr. Williams said, informed them of the annihilation of nations by means of direct taxation. He referred gentlemen to the situation of the Roman Empire in its innocence, and asked them whether they had any direct taxes? No. Indirect taxes and taxes upon luxuries and spices from the Indies were their sources of revenue; but, as soon as they changed their system to direct taxation, it operated to their ruin; their children were sold as slaves, and the Empire fell from its splendor. Shall we then follow this system? He trusted not."

So what was meant by direct taxes? During the Convention which framed our Constitution ''Mr. King asked what was the precise meaning of direct taxation? No one answered.'' –

Having studied historical documentation during the time period our Constitution was adopted to identify the distinctions between direct and indirect taxation, one thing I am pretty certain of, there is a consistency among the founders comments and tax legislation of the time that direct taxes are those assessed to the individual by government, while indirect taxes are costs added by government to things which individuals are free to acquired or reject. For example, Hamilton's brief in the Hylton carriage case which Roberts quoted in the Obamacare case says: 'The following are presumed to be the only direct taxes: Capitation or poll taxes, taxes on lands and buildings, general assessments, whether on the whole property of individuals, or on their whole real or personal estate. All else must, of necessity, be considered as indirect taxes.'

And so, I am unwilling as others to assert a flat tax calculated from “incomes” is constitutional. In some cases it may very well be, but in other cases historical evidence indicates it takes the form of a direct tax and must therefore be apportioned to be within the four walls of our Constitution.

Finally, keep in mind that Cruz’s “tax reform” defeats the founder’s intentions that any general tax laid among the states would be apportioned and was agreed upon for a very good reason. That reason was to insure that if and when Congress decided to lay a direct tax, each state’s share of a total being raised would be proportionately equal to its representation in Congress . . . in other words, representation with a proportional financial obligation, an idea which socialists and the friends of big government fear with a passion. They want their one man, one vote, but refuse to pay their one dollar one vote.
In any event, here is what our founder said regarding the rule of apportionment:

Pinckney addressing the S.C. ratification convention with regard to the rule of apportionment :

“With regard to the general government imposing internal taxes upon us, he contended that it was absolutely necessary they should have such a power: requisitions had been in vain tried every year since the ratification of the old Confederation, and not a single state had paid the quota required of her. The general government could not abuse this power, and favor one state and oppress another, as each state was to be taxed only in proportion to its representation.” 4 Elliot‘s, S.C., 305-6

And see:
“The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil”3 Elliot’s, 243,“Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax” 3 Elliot’s, 244 ___ Mr. George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution.

Mr. Madison goes on to remark about Congress’s “general power of taxation” that, "they will be limited to fix the proportion of each State, and they must raise it in the most convenient and satisfactory manner to the public."3 Elliot, 255

And if there is any confusion about the rule of apportionment intentionally being designed to insure that the people of each state are to be taxed proportionately equal to their representation in Congress, Mr. PENDLETON says:

“The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union, she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion”3 Elliot’s 41

JWK



Are we really ok with 45 percent of our nation’s population who pay no taxes on incomes being allowed to vote for representatives who spend federal revenue which the remaining 55 percent of our nation’s hard working and productive population has contributed into our federal treasury via taxes on incomes when our Constitution requires “Representatives and direct taxes Shall be apportioned among the Several States”?

You can believe what you want, however your interpretation is wrong, and uses the same logical mind-twists progressives use to ignore parts of the constitution they don't like. Bad logic is bad logic no matter what side of the aisle it comes from.

Thank you for you opinion. Unlike your opinion, what I post is support by documented facts.

JWK

"facts". You have to ignore words in the text, and type 3 pages of purported logic to reach your conclusion. Occam's Razor is spinning in its bed over this.

 

[johnwk]

The irrefutable fact is, the 16th Amendment was not intended to, nor does it, repeal those portions of the Constitution which require "direct taxes" to be apportioned [Article I, § 2, cl. 3, and Article I, § 9, cl. 4], and this applies to a tax on income which takes the form of a “direct tax”.

Let us take a look at the historical facts concerning the 16th Amendment.

When proposed, on June 17th 1909, the 16th Amendment originally read as follows:

“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect direct taxes on incomes without apportionment among the several states according to population.”

Had this wording been ratified as the 16th Amendment which declared Congress “… shall have power to lay and collect direct taxes on incomes without apportionment …” there would be no question that the proposed amendment was intentionally written to allow Congress to lay and collect direct taxes on incomes. But this wording was intentionally changed on June 28th, 1909 to:

"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 fact, the power to lay and collect a direct tax on incomes without apportionment was changed to only allow a tax on incomes without apportionment and left intact the protections in our Constitution which require any direct tax to be apportioned.

On July 12, 1909, the resolution proposing the Sixteenth Amendment was passed by the Congress and was submitted to the state legislatures for ratification.

At this point in time the question raised is how may Congress lay and collect a tax on incomes which takes the form of an indirect tax which does not require and apportionment? And the answer to this question is found in Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 (1911) Decided March 13, 1911 before the 16th Amendment is adopted! The tax in question is referred to as the Corporate tax of 1909.

This tax, expressly stated in the act is to be equivalent to 1 per centum of the entire net income over and above $5,000 received from all sources during the year. The court goes on to explain:

"The tax under consideration, as we have construed the statute, may be described as an excise upon the particular privilege of doing business in a corporate capacity, i. e., with the advantages which arise from corporate or quasi corporate organization; or, when applied to insurance companies, for doing the business of such companies. As was said in the Thomas Case, 192 U. S. supra, the requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of [220 U.S. 107, 152] privileges, and the element of absolute and unavoidable demand is lacking. If business is not done in the manner described in the statute, no tax is payable."

"If we are correct in holding that this is an excise tax, there is nothing in the Constitution requiring such taxes to be apportioned according to population. Pacific Ins. Co. v. Soule, 7 Wall. 433, 19 L. ed. 95; Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 , 26 L. ed. 253; Spreckels Sugar Ref. Co. v. McClain, 192 U.S. 397 , 48 L. ed. 496, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 376."

Two years after this case is decided the 16th amendment was ratified on Feb. 3rd, 1913, and it merely confirms what the court has already stated in Flint, that Congress has power to lay and collect taxes on incomes without having to apportion the tax, but keep in mind the tax on incomes takes the form of an indirect tax which only requires uniformity.

The bottom line is, in some cases a tax on “incomes” is an indirect tax and does not require an apportionment, but in other cases historical evidence indicates it can take the form of a direct tax and must therefore be apportioned to be within the four walls of our Constitution.

The simple truth is, the 16th Amendment did not remove the protection that any tax laid, regardless of the name placed upon the tax, if it is direct, requires and apportionment among the States. And let us not forget the last time this was confirmed was in the recent Obamacare case in which Justice Roberts wrote:

”The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several States.”

Now, getting back to what Ted Cruz proposes for tax reform, which is more in line with the subject of the thread, he supports keeping alive the socialist friendly and notoriously evil tax calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other lawfully earned incomes which is the very vehicle used by our Washington Establishment to keep the heel of government on the necks of the American People. Additionally, it is most remarkable that Cruz tells us he will shut down the IRS, but proposes the very type of tax which requires the IRS to stay open. And I find that disingenuous.


JWK



If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property. POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)

 

[martybegan]

There is no such thing as a ‘constitutional conservative’ – they’re actually un-Constitutional conservatives, given their ignorance of, or contempt for, the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law.

Yes, the "make it up as we go along" progressive model is SOOOOO much freaking better!!!

/sarcasm

 

[SwimExpert]

The irrefutable fact is, the 16th Amendment was not intended to, nor does it, repeal those portions of the Constitution which require "direct taxes" to be apportioned [Article I, § 2, cl. 3, and Article I, § 9, cl. 4], and this applies to a tax on income which takes the form of a “direct tax”.

 

[johnwk]

[
Every time you lie....I quote the ruling. And you lose again. See, John.......you're fucked. As your argument requires an ignorant audience. And we're not ignorant. Any of us can just read the passages in the Eisner ruling that you desperately pretend don't exist. And even more desperately pretend we don't know about.

Pretend away. You lost the moment you ignored your own source.

The conclusion of the court is as follows:

"Thus, from every point of view we are brought irresistibly to the conclusion that neither under the Sixteenth Amendment nor otherwise has Congress power to tax without apportionment a true stock dividend made lawfully and in good faith, or the accumulated profits behind it, as income of the stockholder. The Revenue Act of 1916, in so far as it imposes a tax upon the stockholder because of such dividend, contravenes the provisions of article 1, 2, cl. 3, and article 1, 9, cl. 4, of the Constitution, and to this extent is invalid, notwithstanding the Sixteenth Amendment." -Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920)

JWK

 

[johnwk]

The irrefutable fact is, the 16th Amendment was not intended to, nor does it, repeal those portions of the Constitution which require "direct taxes" to be apportioned [Article I, § 2, cl. 3, and Article I, § 9, cl. 4], and this applies to a tax on income which takes the form of a “direct tax”.

Your unsupported opinion is noted.


Let us take a look at the historical facts concerning the 16th Amendment.

When proposed, on June 17th 1909, the 16th Amendment originally read as follows:

“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect direct taxes on incomes without apportionment among the several states according to population.”

Had this wording been ratified as the 16th Amendment which declared Congress “… shall have power to lay and collect direct taxes on incomes without apportionment …” there would be no question that the proposed amendment was intentionally written to allow Congress to lay and collect direct taxes on incomes. But this wording was intentionally changed on June 28th, 1909 to:

"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 fact, the power to lay and collect a direct tax on incomes without apportionment was changed to only allow a tax on incomes without apportionment and left intact the protections in our Constitution which require any direct tax to be apportioned.

On July 12, 1909, the resolution proposing the Sixteenth Amendment was passed by the Congress and was submitted to the state legislatures for ratification.

At this point in time the question raised is how may Congress lay and collect a tax on incomes which takes the form of an indirect tax which does not require and apportionment? And the answer to this question is found in Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 (1911) Decided March 13, 1911 before the 16th Amendment is adopted! The tax in question is referred to as the Corporate tax of 1909.

This tax, expressly stated in the act is to be equivalent to 1 per centum of the entire net income over and above $5,000 received from all sources during the year. The court goes on to explain:

"The tax under consideration, as we have construed the statute, may be described as an excise upon the particular privilege of doing business in a corporate capacity, i. e., with the advantages which arise from corporate or quasi corporate organization; or, when applied to insurance companies, for doing the business of such companies. As was said in the Thomas Case, 192 U. S. supra, the requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of [220 U.S. 107, 152] privileges, and the element of absolute and unavoidable demand is lacking. If business is not done in the manner described in the statute, no tax is payable."

"If we are correct in holding that this is an excise tax, there is nothing in the Constitution requiring such taxes to be apportioned according to population. Pacific Ins. Co. v. Soule, 7 Wall. 433, 19 L. ed. 95; Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 , 26 L. ed. 253; Spreckels Sugar Ref. Co. v. McClain, 192 U.S. 397 , 48 L. ed. 496, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 376."

Two years after this case is decided the 16th amendment was ratified on Feb. 3rd, 1913, and it merely confirms what the court has already stated in Flint, that Congress has power to lay and collect taxes on incomes without having to apportion the tax, but keep in mind the tax on incomes takes the form of an indirect tax which only requires uniformity.

The bottom line is, in some cases a tax on “incomes” is an indirect tax and does not require an apportionment, but in other cases historical evidence indicates it can take the form of a direct tax and must therefore be apportioned to be within the four walls of our Constitution.

The simple truth is, the 16th Amendment did not remove the protection that any tax laid, regardless of the name placed upon the tax, if it is direct, requires and apportionment among the States. And let us not forget the last time this was confirmed was in the recent Obamacare case in which Justice Roberts wrote:

”The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several States.”

Now, getting back to what Ted Cruz proposes for tax reform, which is more in line with the subject of the thread, he supports keeping alive the socialist friendly and notoriously evil tax calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other lawfully earned incomes which is the very vehicle used by our Washington Establishment to keep the heel of government on the necks of the American People. Additionally, it is most remarkable that Cruz tells us he will shut down the IRS, but proposes the very type of tax which requires the IRS to stay open. And I find that disingenuous.


JWK



If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property. POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)

 

[SwimExpert]

When proposed, on June 17th 1909, the 16th Amendment originally read as follows:

 

[johnwk]

When proposed, on June 17th 1909, the 16th Amendment originally read as follows:

Adults who have a desire to seek out truth and facts and who support and defend both the text of our Constitution and its documented legislative intent which gives context to the text.

JWK


The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.--- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.

 

[Skylar]

The irrefutable fact is, the 16th Amendment was not intended to, nor does it, repeal those portions of the Constitution which require "direct taxes" to be apportioned [Article I, § 2, cl. 3, and Article I, § 9, cl. 4], and this applies to a tax on income which takes the form of a “direct tax”.

If those 'direct taxes' were derived by income, yes it was.

Which the supreme court made ludicrously clear:

"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."

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.

Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920)

You say otherwise. And you're nobody. As demonstrated by the fact that taxes on income are fully constitutional and collected daily. And without the slightest apportionment requirements.

You lose again, John.

 

[Skylar]

When proposed, on June 17th 1909, the 16th Amendment originally read as follows:

Adults who have a desire to seek out truth and facts and who support and defend both the text of our Constitution and its documented legislative intent which gives context to the text.

JWK


The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.--- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.

Says the poor, hapless soul that insists that a tax on incomes isn't an income tax. Which you laughably insist is 'legislative intent'.

Um, no John. You simply don't know what you're talking about. The income tax didn't occur in a vacuum. It has been advocated for *years* before its passage in 1913. And its intent was to tax income. Says who? Says the democratic party that made an income tax part of its platform in 1908:

[W]e favor an income tax as part of our revenue system, and we urge the submission of a constitutional amendment specifically authorizing congress to levy and collect a tax upon individual and corporate incomes, to the end that wealth may bear its proportionate share of the burdens of the federal government.
​

There's a reason why you've been spouting this same pseudo-legal gibberish for nearly a decade......and still can't find one other person to drink your Kool-aid: your argument is absolute nonsense. Its literally contradicted by the very cases you're citing. And doesn't make the slightest sense.

The intent of the 16th amendment was to remove any apportionment requirement on taxes on incomes. Which is exactly what it did.

Get used to the idea.

 

[Skylar]

[
Every time you lie....I quote the ruling. And you lose again. See, John.......you're fucked. As your argument requires an ignorant audience. And we're not ignorant. Any of us can just read the passages in the Eisner ruling that you desperately pretend don't exist. And even more desperately pretend we don't know about.

Pretend away. You lost the moment you ignored your own source.

The conclusion of the court is as follows:

"Thus, from every point of view we are brought irresistibly to the conclusion that neither under the Sixteenth Amendment nor otherwise has Congress power to tax without apportionment a true stock dividend made lawfully and in good faith, or the accumulated profits behind it, as income of the stockholder. The Revenue Act of 1916, in so far as it imposes a tax upon the stockholder because of such dividend, contravenes the provisions of article 1, 2, cl. 3, and article 1, 9, cl. 4, of the Constitution, and to this extent is invalid, notwithstanding the Sixteenth Amendment." -Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920)

JWK

Which doesn't even mention an income tax. Nor invalidates a tax on incomes without apportionment requirements. Meanwhile, the same passage from Eisner that you run screaming from destroys your argument:

"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."

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.

Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920)

I told everyone here to keep an eye on this passage. That you would refuse to discuss it or even acknowledge it exists.

If your argument had merit, you could have addressed this passage in Eisner directly and openly. Instead, you fled. Demonstrating that even you know your argument is meaningless pseudo-legal gibberish.

 

[Skylar]

The bottom line is, in some cases a tax on “incomes” is an indirect tax and does not require an apportionment, but in other cases historical evidence indicates it can take the form of a direct tax and must therefore be apportioned to be within the four walls of our Constitution.

The simple truth is, the 16th Amendment did not remove the protection that any tax laid, regardless of the name placed upon the tax, if it is direct, requires and apportionment among the States. And let us not forget the last time this was confirmed was in the recent Obamacare case in which Justice Roberts wrote:

The simple truth is that the 16th amendment removed any apportionment requirements on any taxes on income.

From any source derived.

Your silly little conspiracy theory is that the 16th requirement wasn't intended to lift any apportionment requirements. As it only applied to taxes that didn't have any apportionment requirement. Why then was there any mention of apportionment requirements if apportionment was irrelevant to to the 16th amendment?

This is why no one takes your argument seriously, John. Its just stupid. Its literally contradicted by the 16th amendment itself.

Its been 10 years and you've been laughed out of every message board you've spewed this pseudo-legal gibberish. Has it ever occurred to you that simply don't know what you're talking about?

Because its definitely occurred to us.

 

[johnwk]

Let us take a look at the historical facts concerning the 16th Amendment.

When proposed, on June 17th 1909, the 16th Amendment originally read as follows:

“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect direct taxes on incomes without apportionment among the several states according to population.”

Had this wording been ratified as the 16th Amendment which declared Congress “… shall have power to lay and collect direct taxes on incomes without apportionment …” there would be no question that the proposed amendment was intentionally written to allow Congress to lay and collect direct taxes on incomes. But this wording was intentionally changed on June 28th, 1909 to:

"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 fact, the power to lay and collect a direct tax on incomes without apportionment was changed to only allow a tax on incomes without apportionment and left intact the protections in our Constitution which require any direct tax to be apportioned.

On July 12, 1909, the resolution proposing the Sixteenth Amendment was passed by the Congress and was submitted to the state legislatures for ratification.

At this point in time the question raised is how may Congress lay and collect a tax on incomes which takes the form of an indirect tax which does not require and apportionment? And the answer to this question is found in Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 (1911) Decided March 13, 1911 before the 16th Amendment is adopted! The tax in question is referred to as the Corporate tax of 1909.

This tax, expressly stated in the act is to be equivalent to 1 per centum of the entire net income over and above $5,000 received from all sources during the year. The court goes on to explain:

"The tax under consideration, as we have construed the statute, may be described as an excise upon the particular privilege of doing business in a corporate capacity, i. e., with the advantages which arise from corporate or quasi corporate organization; or, when applied to insurance companies, for doing the business of such companies. As was said in the Thomas Case, 192 U. S. supra, the requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of [220 U.S. 107, 152] privileges, and the element of absolute and unavoidable demand is lacking. If business is not done in the manner described in the statute, no tax is payable."

"If we are correct in holding that this is an excise tax, there is nothing in the Constitution requiring such taxes to be apportioned according to population. Pacific Ins. Co. v. Soule, 7 Wall. 433, 19 L. ed. 95; Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 , 26 L. ed. 253; Spreckels Sugar Ref. Co. v. McClain, 192 U.S. 397 , 48 L. ed. 496, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 376."

Two years after this case is decided the 16th amendment was ratified on Feb. 3rd, 1913, and it merely confirms what the court has already stated in Flint, that Congress has power to lay and collect taxes on incomes without having to apportion the tax, but keep in mind the tax on incomes takes the form of an indirect tax which only requires uniformity.

The bottom line is, in some cases a tax on “incomes” is an indirect tax and does not require an apportionment, but in other cases historical evidence indicates it can take the form of a direct tax and must therefore be apportioned to be within the four walls of our Constitution.

The simple truth is, the 16th Amendment did not remove the protection that any tax laid, regardless of the name placed upon the tax, if it is direct, requires and apportionment among the States. And let us not forget the last time this was confirmed was in the recent Obamacare case in which Justice Roberts wrote:

”The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several States.”

Now, getting back to what Ted Cruz proposes for tax reform, which is more in line with the subject of the thread, he supports keeping alive the socialist friendly and notoriously evil tax calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other lawfully earned incomes which is the very vehicle used by our Washington Establishment to keep the heel of government on the necks of the American People. Additionally, it is most remarkable that Cruz tells us he will shut down the IRS, but proposes the very type of tax which requires the IRS to stay open. And I find that disingenuous.


JWK



If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property. POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)

 

[johnwk]

The bottom line is, in some cases a tax on “incomes” is an indirect tax and does not require an apportionment, but in other cases historical evidence indicates it can take the form of a direct tax and must therefore be apportioned to be within the four walls of our Constitution.

The simple truth is, the 16th Amendment did not remove the protection that any tax laid, regardless of the name placed upon the tax, if it is direct, requires and apportionment among the States. And let us not forget the last time this was confirmed was in the recent Obamacare case in which Justice Roberts wrote:

The simple truth is that the 16th amendment removed any apportionment requirements on any taxes on income.

From any source derived.

From any source derived.

It is interesting to note that you edit out the court’s answer to your question! The court states:

”This limitation [“those provisions of the Constitution that require an apportionment according to population for direct taxes upon property, real and personal”] still has an appropriate and important function, and is not to be overridden by Congress or disregarded by the courts.”

In order, therefore, that the clauses cited from article 1 of the Constitution may have proper force and effect, save only as modified by the amendment, and that the latter also may have proper effect, it becomes essential to distinguish between what is and what is not 'income,' as the term is there used, and to apply the distinction, as cases arise, according to truth and substance, without regard to form. Congress cannot by any definition it may adopt conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised.

The fundamental relation of 'capital' to 'income' has been much discussed by economists, the former being likened to the tree or the land, the latter to the fruit or the crop; the former depicted as a reservoir supplied from springs, the latter as the outlet stream, to be measured by its flow during a period of time. For the present purpose we require only a clear definition of the term 'income,' [252 U.S. 189, 207] 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.”

The court then goes on to discuss and elaborate upon the nature of a stock dividend and in so doing writes the following:

”And we are considering the taxability of bona fide stock dividends only. [252 U.S. 189, 212] We are clear that not only does a stock dividend really take nothing from the property of the corporation and add nothing to that of the shareholder, but that the antecedent accumulation of profits evidenced thereby, while indicating that the shareholder is the richer because of an increase of his capital, at the same time shows he has not realized or received any income in the transaction.”

Finally the Court concludes:

“ In so far as this seems to uphold the right of Congress to tax without apportionment a stockholder's interest in accumulated earnings prior to dividend declared, it must be regarded as overruled by Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601, 627 , 628 S., 637, 15 Sup. Ct. 912. Conceding Collector v. Hubbard was inconsistent with the doctrine of that case, because it sustained a direct tax upon property not apportioned [252 U.S. 189, 219] AMONG THE STATES, THE GOVERNMENT NEVERTHELESS insists that the sixteenth Amendment removed this obstacle, so that now the Hubbard Case is authority for the power of Congress to levy a tax on the stockholder's share in the accumulated profits of the corporation even before division by the declaration of a dividend of any kind. Manifestly this argument must be rejected, since the amendment applies to income only, and what is called the stockholder's share in the accumulated profits of the company is capital, not income. As we have pointed out, a stockholder has no individual share in accumulated profits, nor in any particular part of the assets of the corporation, prior to dividend declared.

Thus, from every point of view we are brought irresistibly to the conclusion that neither under the Sixteenth Amendment nor otherwise has Congress power to tax without apportionment a true stock dividend made lawfully and in good faith, or the accumulated profits behind it, as income of the stockholder. The Revenue Act of 1916, in so far as it imposes a tax upon the stockholder because of such dividend, contravenes the provisions of article 1, 2, cl. 3, and article 1, 9, cl. 4, of the Constitution, and to this extent is invalid, notwithstanding the Sixteenth Amendment."

The bottom line is, simply because Congress declares a tax to be a “tax upon incomes” does not make it so. If the tax takes the form of a direct tax, it still requires an apportionment among the state as found in the Eisner Case. Each case, as the court has eloquently stated, is to be decided ”… according to truth and substance, without regard to form. Congress cannot by any definition it may adopt conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised.”

JWK


If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property. POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)

 

[Skylar]

The bottom line is, in some cases a tax on “incomes” is an indirect tax and does not require an apportionment, but in other cases historical evidence indicates it can take the form of a direct tax and must therefore be apportioned to be within the four walls of our Constitution.

The simple truth is, the 16th Amendment did not remove the protection that any tax laid, regardless of the name placed upon the tax, if it is direct, requires and apportionment among the States. And let us not forget the last time this was confirmed was in the recent Obamacare case in which Justice Roberts wrote:

The simple truth is that the 16th amendment removed any apportionment requirements on any taxes on income.

From any source derived.

From any source derived.

It is interesting to note that you edit out the court’s answer to your question! The court states:

”This limitation [“those provisions of the Constitution that require an apportionment according to population for direct taxes upon property, real and personal”] still has an appropriate and important function, and is not to be overridden by Congress or disregarded by the courts.”

In order, therefore, that the clauses cited from article 1 of the Constitution may have proper force and effect, save only as modified by the amendment, and that the latter also may have proper effect, it becomes essential to distinguish between what is and what is not 'income,' as the term is there used, and to apply the distinction, as cases arise, according to truth and substance, without regard to form. Congress cannot by any definition it may adopt conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised.

The fundamental relation of 'capital' to 'income' has been much discussed by economists, the former being likened to the tree or the land, the latter to the fruit or the crop; the former depicted as a reservoir supplied from springs, the latter as the outlet stream, to be measured by its flow during a period of time. For the present purpose we require only a clear definition of the term 'income,' [252 U.S. 189, 207] 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.”

The court then goes on to discuss and elaborate upon the nature of a stock dividend and in so doing writes the following:

”And we are considering the taxability of bona fide stock dividends only. [252 U.S. 189, 212] We are clear that not only does a stock dividend really take nothing from the property of the corporation and add nothing to that of the shareholder, but that the antecedent accumulation of profits evidenced thereby, while indicating that the shareholder is the richer because of an increase of his capital, at the same time shows he has not realized or received any income in the transaction.”

Again, your legal logic is pure shit. And you know its pure shit. The Eisner decision doesn't find that pro-rata dividendss are exempt from the 16th amendment because of the source derived. Instead, it finds that pro-rata dividends aren't income because nothing is derived. No property, no cash, no proportionally large part of the company, nothing.

"Throughout the argument of the Government, in a variety of forms, runs the fundamental error already mentioned—a failure to appraise correctly the force of the term "income" as used in the Sixteenth Amendment, or at least to give practical effect to it. Thus, the Government contends that the tax "is levied on income derived from corporate earnings," when in truth the stockholder has "derived" nothing except paper certificates which, so far as they have any effect, deny him [or "her" — in this case, Mrs. Macomber] present participation in such earnings. It [the government] contends that the tax may be laid when earnings "are received by the stockholder," whereas he has received none; that the profits are "distributed by means of a stock dividend," although a stock dividend distributes no profits; that under the Act of 1916 "the tax is on the stockholder's share in corporate earnings," when in truth a stockholder has no such share, and receives none in a stock dividend; that "the profits are segregated from his [her] former capital, and he has a separate certificate representing his [her] invested profits or gains," whereas there has been no segregation of profits, nor has he any separate certificate representing a personal gain, since the certificates, new and old, are alike in what they represent—a capital interest in the entire concerns of the corporation."

Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920)
​

Which you know. But really hope we don't. The Eisner finding that a pro-rata dividend isn't income is the reason pro-rata dividends aren't included as part of the 16th amendment.

Exactly as I told you. Exactly as you ignore.

Finally the Court concludes:

“ In so far as this seems to uphold the right of Congress to tax without apportionment a stockholder's interest in accumulated earnings prior to dividend declared, it must be regarded as overruled by Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601, 627 , 628 S., 637, 15 Sup. Ct. 912. Conceding Collector v. Hubbard was inconsistent with the doctrine of that case, because it sustained a direct tax upon property not apportioned [252 U.S. 189, 219] AMONG THE STATES, THE GOVERNMENT NEVERTHELESS insists that the sixteenth Amendment removed this obstacle, so that now the Hubbard Case is authority for the power of Congress to levy a tax on the stockholder's share in the accumulated profits of the corporation even before division by the declaration of a dividend of any kind. Manifestly this argument must be rejected, since the amendment applies to income only, and what is called the stockholder's share in the accumulated profits of the company is capital, not income. As we have pointed out, a stockholder has no individual share in accumulated profits, nor in any particular part of the assets of the corporation, prior to dividend declared.

Exactly. The court found that the dividend wasn't income. The very passage you highlighted destroys your entire argument:

"Manifestly this argument must be rejected, since the amendment applies to income only, and what is called the stockholder's share in the accumulated profits of the company is capital, not income. "
​

Which ends entire argument that the 16th amendment didn't remove apportionment requirements on the income. Exactly as I described, the court didn't exclude pro-rata dividends from apportionment requirements because of the source of the income. It excluded pro-rata dividends because they weren't income. With income apportionment requirements being lifted by the 16th amendment. A point the court further emphasizes explicitly and clearly in this portion of their ruling:

"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."

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.

Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920)

You ignore the Eisner court's finding that pro-rata dividends aren't income, refusing to cite, refute, discuss or even acknowledge the existence of quote from the Eisner court. Your fastidious avoidance of that finding demonstrates you know the Eisner court contradicts you. And you know you're full of shit.

Worse, you ignore the Eisner court's findings that the 16th amendment removed the apportionment requirement for taxes laid on incomes. Again, refusing to cite, refute, discuss or even acknowledge the existence of quote from the Eisner court either. You avoid that this finding of the Eisner court like it were on fire because you know it destroys your argument. Meaning you know you're full of shit again.

As always your argument falls apart when presented to an informed audience because you're simply pretending that the passages that utterly refute you don't exist.

No court nor rational person is obligated to pretend with you. Which is why you've been a laughing stock on every board you've spewed this pseudo-legal gibberish for the last 10 years. Including this one.

 

[Skylar]

Let us take a look at the historical facts concerning the 16th Amendment.

When proposed, on June 17th 1909, the 16th Amendment originally read as follows:

“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect direct taxes on incomes without apportionment among the several states according to population.”

Had this wording been ratified as the 16th Amendment which declared Congress “… shall have power to lay and collect direct taxes on incomes without apportionment …” there would be no question that the proposed amendment was intentionally written to allow Congress to lay and collect direct taxes on incomes. But this wording was intentionally changed on June 28th, 1909 to:

"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 fact, the power to lay and collect a direct tax on incomes without apportionment was changed to only allow a tax on incomes without apportionment and left intact the protections in our Constitution which require any direct tax to be apportioned.

On July 12, 1909, the resolution proposing the Sixteenth Amendment was passed by the Congress and was submitted to the state legislatures for ratification.

At this point in time the question raised is how may Congress lay and collect a tax on incomes which takes the form of an indirect tax which does not require and apportionment? And the answer to this question is found in Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 (1911) Decided March 13, 1911 before the 16th Amendment is adopted! The tax in question is referred to as the Corporate tax of 1909.

Says you, citing yourself. Yet your own source Eisner explicitly contradicts you, citing the 16th amendment as the source of the lifting of any apportionment requirements on taxes on income:

"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."

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.

Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920)

The reason that taxes on income are exempt from the apportionment requirement.....is because the 16th amendment removed that requirement for taxes on income. Exactly as the Eisner court found. You insist that wasn't the 16th amendment but the Flint case. The Eisner court explicitly contradicts you.

As usual, your pseudo-legal gibberish ONLY works with an ignorant audience. Anyone with an even passing understanding of the cases you're citing or the legal principles you're pretending to rely recognize that you're completely full of shit. And you know you're full of shit. As you avoid the passages in the Eisner decision that destroy your argument like they were on fire.

Alas, we can still see them. As can any court. Which is why your meaningless pseudo-legal nonsense has never made the slightest legal headway.

 

[johnwk]

The reason that taxes on income are exempt from the apportionment requirement.....is because the 16th amendment removed that requirement for taxes on income. Exactly as the Eisner court found. You insist that wasn't the 16th amendment but the Flint case. The Eisner court explicitly contradicts you.

Let us look at what the Eisner case really states.

”This limitation [“those provisions of the Constitution that require an apportionment according to population for direct taxes upon property, real and personal”] still has an appropriate and important function, and is not to be overridden by Congress or disregarded by the courts.”

In order, therefore, that the clauses cited from article 1 of the Constitution may have proper force and effect, save only as modified by the amendment, and that the latter also may have proper effect, it becomes essential to distinguish between what is and what is not 'income,' as the term is there used, and to apply the distinction, as cases arise, according to truth and substance, without regard to form. Congress cannot by any definition it may adopt conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised.

The fundamental relation of 'capital' to 'income' has been much discussed by economists, the former being likened to the tree or the land, the latter to the fruit or the crop; the former depicted as a reservoir supplied from springs, the latter as the outlet stream, to be measured by its flow during a period of time. For the present purpose we require only a clear definition of the term 'income,' [252 U.S. 189, 207] 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.”

The court then goes on to discuss and elaborate upon the nature of a stock dividend and in so doing writes the following:

”And we are considering the taxability of bona fide stock dividends only. [252 U.S. 189, 212] We are clear that not only does a stock dividend really take nothing from the property of the corporation and add nothing to that of the shareholder, but that the antecedent accumulation of profits evidenced thereby, while indicating that the shareholder is the richer because of an increase of his capital, at the same time shows he has not realized or received any income in the transaction.”

Finally the Court concludes:

“ In so far as this seems to uphold the right of Congress to tax without apportionment a stockholder's interest in accumulated earnings prior to dividend declared, it must be regarded as overruled by Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601, 627 , 628 S., 637, 15 Sup. Ct. 912. Conceding Collector v. Hubbard was inconsistent with the doctrine of that case, because it sustained a direct tax upon property not apportioned [252 U.S. 189, 219] AMONG THE STATES, THE GOVERNMENT NEVERTHELESS insists that the sixteenth Amendment removed this obstacle, so that now the Hubbard Case is authority for the power of Congress to levy a tax on the stockholder's share in the accumulated profits of the corporation even before division by the declaration of a dividend of any kind. Manifestly this argument must be rejected, since the amendment applies to income only, and what is called the stockholder's share in the accumulated profits of the company is capital, not income. As we have pointed out, a stockholder has no individual share in accumulated profits, nor in any particular part of the assets of the corporation, prior to dividend declared.

Thus, from every point of view we are brought irresistibly to the conclusion that neither under the Sixteenth Amendment nor otherwise has Congress power to tax without apportionment a true stock dividend made lawfully and in good faith, or the accumulated profits behind it, as income of the stockholder. The Revenue Act of 1916, in so far as it imposes a tax upon the stockholder because of such dividend, contravenes the provisions of article 1, 2, cl. 3, and article 1, 9, cl. 4, of the Constitution, and to this extent is invalid, notwithstanding the Sixteenth Amendment."

The bottom line is, simply because Congress declares a tax to be a “tax upon incomes” does not make it so. If the tax takes the form of a direct tax, it still requires an apportionment among the state as found in the Eisner Case. Each case, as the court has eloquently stated, is to be decided ”… according to truth and substance, without regard to form. Congress cannot by any definition it may adopt conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised.”

JWK


If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property. POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)