Visit Website Did you know?
And it has been the consistent opinion of the Supreme Court beginning with Hylton v. United States, 3 U. United States, U.
The income tax that was challenged in the Pollock decision was similar, and the majority opinion first struck down the tax on incomes from property i. That a tax on wages and other compensation for labor would have been constitutional even before the adoption of the 16th Amendment was confirmed by the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court in Brushaber, in which the court stated: See also, Charczuk v.
After the Brushaber decision, the Supreme Court still followed the doctrine established by the decision in Collector v. However, in a case challenging the application of the federal income tax to the salaries of employees of the Port of New York Authority a bi-state corporation formed by New York and New Jerseythe Supreme Court clearly stated that Congress could tax the earnings of those employees in the same manner as employees private businesses: The taxpayers enjoy the benefits and protection of the laws of the United States.
They are under a duty to support its government and are not beyond the reach of its taxing power. A nondiscriminatory tax laid on their net income, in common with that of all other members of the community, could by no reasonable probability be considered to preclude the performance of the function which New York and New Jersey have undertaken, or to obstruct it more than like private enterprises are obstructed by our taxing system.
The Supreme Court explicitly overruled Collector v. Day in Graves v. New York ex rel. Their compensation, whether paid out of the returns from the business or otherwise, can have no quality, so far as the federal taxing power is concerned, superior to that of the enterprise in which the compensated service is rendered.
We conclude that the Congress had the constitutional authority to lay the tax. None of these decisions would have been unnecessary if Congress did not have the power to tax wages and salaries generally.
The decisions were necessary only because the Supreme Court already knew that it was constitutional to tax the compensation of a private business and so the issue was whether state employees should be treated differently.
The Supreme Court initially held that state employees should be treated differently, but then eventually reversed itself and concluded that the same taxes should be paid by state employees as any other employee.
In the case of Commissioner v. Kowalski, US 77the Supreme Court held that meal allowances paid by the state of New Jersey to state troopers constituted income subject to tax. Kowalski, US 77, 83 The lower courts have therefore had no problem in holding that an unapportioned income tax on wages is constitutional.
The Court also noted that in Pollock v. See also, United States v. United States, F. As far as the author has been able to determine, the above quotation has never been cited or discussed by any federal court.
The next time that Adam Smith is mentioned in a Supreme Court opinion is in a unanimous opinion written by Chief Justice Chase in Attempts to answer it by reference to the definitions of political economists have been frequently made, but without satisfactory results.
The enumeration of the different kinds of taxes which Congress was authorized to impose was probably made with very little reference to their speculations.
This sentiment was followed in the second Pollock decision, in which the majority stated: But Chief Justice Chase, delivering the judgment of this court in Bank v.
Rent, Profit, and Wages. Every tax must finally be paid from some one or other of those three different sorts of revenue, or from all of them indifferently. From the quotation above and Wealth of Nations as a wholeit is clear that Adam Smith believed that all taxes must be paid from income.
Inheritance and estate taxes were addressed in an appendix.The Constitution of the United States Preamble Note. We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Observing Constitution Day Background On September 17, , a majority of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention approved the documents over which they had labored since May.
North Carolina ratified the Constitution. Finally, Rhode Island, which had rejected the Constitution in March by popular referendum, called a ratifying.
Nullification, in United States constitutional history, is a legal theory that a state has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal law which that state has deemed unconstitutional with respect to the United States Constitution (as opposed to the state's own constitution).The theory of nullification has never been legally upheld by federal courts.
The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the United States. The Constitution, originally comprising seven articles, delineates the national frame of ph-vs.com first three articles embody the doctrine of the separation of powers, whereby the federal government is divided into three branches: the legislative, consisting of the bicameral Congress; the executive, consisting of the.
The Constitution of the United States of America (see explanation)Preamble ["We the people"] (see explanation) Article I [The Legislative Branch] (see explanation). The Constitution of the United States The Bill of Rights & All Amendments A highly accessible, easy to use online version full text transcript including the Bill of Rights and the rest of the Amendments with both sequential and subject indexes.