Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The Court reasoned that a tax on income from property should be treated as a tax on "property by reason of its ownership" and so should be required to be apportioned. The reasoning was that taxes on the rents from land, the dividends from stocks, and so forth, burdened the property generating the income in the same way that a tax on "property ...
Pollock argued that since a tax on real estate is a direct tax, a tax on the income from such property should be a direct tax as well. Because the Constitution prohibited a "direct tax" unless the tax is apportioned, Pollock argued that the unapportioned income tax should be declared unconstitutional. The "direct tax" argument had also been ...
The decision in Springer went further in declaring that all income taxes were indirect taxes—or more specifically, "within the category of an excise or duty." [42] However, in 1895 income taxes derived from property such as interest, dividends, and rent (imposed under an 1894 Act) were treated as direct taxes by the Supreme Court in Pollock
Tax protester Sixteenth Amendment arguments are assertions that the imposition of the U.S. federal income tax is illegal because the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads "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 Revenue Act of 1861, formally cited as Act of August 5, 1861, Chap. XLV, 12 Stat. 292, included the first U.S. Federal income tax statute (see Sec. 49).The Act, motivated by the need to fund the Civil War, [1] imposed an income tax to be "levied, collected, and paid, upon the annual income of every person residing in the United States, whether such income is derived from any kind of ...
One form of income listed in the Code, that of "discharge of indebtedness" is not often considered income by lay persons. If, however, a taxpayer owes a debt to any other party, and that debt is forgiven without being fully repaid, the taxpayer must as a general rule declare the forgiven amount as income, and must pay tax on it. [6]
Underwood's bill, which represented the largest downward revision of the tariff since the Civil War, aggressively cut rates for raw materials, goods deemed to be "necessities," and products produced domestically by trusts, but it retained higher tariff rates for luxury goods. [12] The bill also instituted a tax on personal income above $4,000. [11]
Some alternatives to the bill included a proposal by Senator David Boren (D-OK), which would have kept much of the tax increase on upper-income payers but eliminated all energy tax increases and scaled back the Earned Income Tax Credit. It was endorsed by Bill Cohen (R-ME), Bennett Johnston (D-LA), and John Danforth (R-MO). Boren's proposal ...