After the Supreme Court’s Pollock decision, a group of ‘progressive’ Republicans joined with Democrats in passing a law taxing corporate income in 1909 (36 Stat. at L. 11, 112-117, Chap. 6, §38.). To avoid the limitation imposed by the Supremes in that case, the crafty Congress imposed the tax on the “carrying on or doing business” by corporations, joint stock companies or associations, and insurance companies, measured by the amount of its entire net income from all sources. In Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. (220 US 107, 146), the court said the tax “may be described generally as a tax upon the doing of business in a corporate capacity.” It further defined “business” as “everything about which a person can be employed,” citing Black's Law Dictionary, and continued with “[t]hat which occupies the time, attention, and labor of men for the purpose of a livelihood or profit,” citing Bouvier's Law Dictionary.
Just one year after the Flint decision, amid some uncertainty as to the ratification of the 16th Amendment, this contingent of Representatives decided to extend this special excise tax to include individuals as well. The bill to accomplish this was H.R. 21214. It just so happens that years ago I came across the House debates on this bill on one of my many expeditions in the law libraries. They provide a revealing glimpse into attitudes and beliefs of the Congressmen of that time. So, in the interest of sharing information that might otherwise escape your attention, here are links to those debates from March 16 and March 19, 1912. Enjoy!
Keeping up with tradition, here's the latest in my series of Supreme Court cases dealing with taxation. This one breaks down Justice Edward White's decision in the 1916 case, Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, 240 U.S. 1 (1916). Since he was a major dissenter from Justice Stephen Field’s decision invalidating the 1894 income tax in the Pollock case, it should come as no surprise that White's majority opinion in Brushaber is not favorable to the tax movement. Follow along as I show where he goes off track in his expositions of what the 16th Amendment did and didn't do, the history leading up to its purported ratification, and the validity of the income tax enacted in its wake.
After the wide-spread support (and by 'wide-spread', I mean few and far between) of the consolidated version of my series on the Hylton case, I decided to make available this consolidated version of my series on the Pollock cases as well.
My Liberty Tree series "Coup in the courts" is a study of the 1796 Supreme Court case Hylton v. United States, which challenged a tax imposed on carriages. It was previously only available by looking up the individual newsletters. But now, thanks to the efforts of Fellowship member Mike, it can now be viewed in this consolidated form. Hats off to you, Mike!
Ah, blessed spring. That time of renewal, when our lawns start growing again, trees start budding, and flowers start blooming. The time, they say, when young men’s thoughts turn to love. But along with these pleasant things, the thoughts of many also inevitably turn to taxes, as the April 15 deadline for filing dreaded 1040 returns — those self-confession forms that the government insists we are required to file every year — looms once again. And I’m not immune to those thoughts of taxes either; I’m just prohibited by an unconstitutional infringement on my right to free speech — that dastardly federal injunction against the Fellowship — from discussing income taxes. So, this month I’m going to talk a little about some other taxes that come to mind as April rolls around.
I was recently reading through the comments for an internet article discussing the situation in Syria, where people protesting against the government are being brutally attacked by that same government. It comes as no surprise that Syria is no more tolerant of those who don’t bow down to their every edict and whim than is the United States (or any government, for that matter). The discussion centered somewhat on the relative severity of the responses from the two governments, with the comparison on the U.S. side being the shooting of unarmed war protesters at Kent State University by National Guard soldiers on May 4, 1970. Some commentators denounced the comparison because while it was regrettable that a couple of people were shot in Ohio, Syria was using tanks against their protesters. Now there’s no question that tanks are an escalation over rifles, but it got me thinking about whether Kent State was really the best example of the U.S. government abusing its citizens.
April 19th is Patriots’ Day, because on that day in 1775 was fired the “shot heard ‘round the world” — the shot attributed with starting the War for Independence in Lexington, Massachusetts. In recent history however, Patriot’s Day has taken on other significance.1 On that day in 1995, the Alfred P. Murrah Building in Oklahoma City was blown up, purportedly by Timothy McVey in retaliation for the 1993 massacre in Waco, Texas. And that is the example that came to my mind when thinking about governments using tanks against their own people.
