kaz
Diamond Member
- Dec 1, 2010
- 78,025
- 22,327
Actually, I am capable of reading and comprehending what I read, and I don't try to misrepresent what I read
No, you're not, you keep arguing the sixteenth doesn't say taxes do not need to be apportioned and you think "taxes on incomes" doesn't refer to "income taxes"
Actually, I have never claimed the 16th Amendment doesn't say taxes do not need to be apportioned. Why do you find in necessary to misrepresent what I have posted?
Aside from that, just what has the Court stated in Eisner regarding a tax on incomes? I says in crystal clear language:
'That Congress has power to tax shareholders upon their property interests in the stock of corporations is beyond question, and that such interests might be valued in view of the condition of the company, including its accumulated and undivided profits, is equally clear. But that this would be taxation of property because of ownership, and hence would require apportionment under the provisions of the Constitution, is settled beyond peradventure by previous decisions of this court.
You're profoundly confused. The Eisner Court found ....
Here is what the Court concluded in Eisner, in its own words, not yours:
"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."
And what was "contravened"?
article 1, 2, cl. 3, declares:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States
And article 1, 9, cl. 4 declares:
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
The fact is, as stated by the Court, the Revenue Act of 1916 being applied to Eisner was found to contravene the direct tax requirements of apportionment "and to this extent is invalid, notwithstanding the Sixteenth Amendment."
JWK
Or ... you could read the 16th amendment ...