Law Articles And Legal Issues

History Of The Federal Income Tax

The powers of Congress, and the limitations set upon those powers, are set forth in Article I of the United States Constitution. Section 8 specifies both the power to collect, "Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises," and the requirement that, "Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

One of the major concerns of the Constitutional Convention was to limit the powers of the Federal Government. Among the powers to be limited was the power of taxation. It was thought that head taxes and property taxes (slaves could be taxed as either or both) were likely to be abused, and that they bore no relation to the activities in which the Federal Government had a legitimate interest. The fourth clause of section 9 therefore specifies that, "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

The courts have generally held that direct taxes are limited to taxes on people (variously called capitation, poll tax or head tax) and property. (Penn Mutual Indemnity Co. v. C.I.R., 227 F.2d 16, 19-20 (3rd Cir. 1960).) All other taxes are commonly referred to as "indirect taxes," because they tax an event, rather than a person or property per se. (Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548, 581-582 (1937).) What seemed to be a straightforward limitation on the power of the legislature based on the subject of the tax proved inexact and unclear when applied to an income tax, which can be arguably viewed either as a direct or an indirect tax.

In order to help pay for its war effort in the American Civil War, the United States government issued its first personal income tax, on August 5, 1861 as part of the Revenue Act of 1861 (3% of all incomes over US $800; rescinded in 1872). Other income taxes followed, although a 1895 Supreme Court ruling, Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., held that taxes on capital gains, dividends, interest, rents and the like were unapportioned direct taxes on property, and therefore unconstitutional.

The Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution removed the limitations on Congress, paving the way for the income tax to become the government's main source of revenue; it states: "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."

A growing number of citizens seeks to challenge the power of the state to collect taxes by finding a way to discount the sixteenth amendment. The italicized paragraphs below are represenative of these attempts:

Lower federal courts sometimes refer to "unapportioned direct taxes" and similar catch phrases to describe the power of Congress to tax income. (See U.S. v. Turano, 802 F.2d 10, 12 (1st Cir. 1986). ("The 16th Amendment eliminated the indirect/direct distinction as applied to taxes on income.")) This, however, does not seem to be the stated position of the Supreme Court.

Yet, despite popular opinion, the 16th Amendment did not give Congress any new taxing powers. In Treasury Decision 2303, the Secretary of the Treasury directly quoted the Supreme Court (Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. (240 U.S. 103)) in saying that "The provisions of the 16th amendment conferred no new power of taxation," but instead simply prohibited Congress original power to tax incomes "from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation, to which it inherently belonged, and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment."

The closest the Supreme Court has come to saying that "from whatever source derived" in the amendment expanded the taxing power of Congress was in Justice Holmes' dissent in Evans v Gore (253 U.S. 245, 267 (1920). (Holmes dissent) (Partially overruled by U.S. v Hatter. 532 U.S. 557 (2001), with respect to the prior reasoning about the compensation clause.)). In that case, the Court was considering the effect the 16th Amendment had on the compensation clause, and specifically whether the compensation of judges was unlawfully reduced by the imposition of the income tax. Justice Holmes opined that under the 16th Amendment, "Congress is given power to collect taxes on incomes from whatever source derived ... [so] it seems to me that the Amendment was intended to put an end to the cause and not merely obviate" the result in Pollock. (Id.) Even in this case, though, the majority affirmed the more restrictive interpretation of the Amendment. (Id. at 262-263. (Majority opinion))

The federal income tax statutes echos the language of the 16th amendment in stating that it reaches "all income from whatever source derived," (26 USC s. 61) including criminal enterprises; criminals who fail to report their income accurately have been successfully prosecuted for tax evasion. Since the language of the amendment is clearly meant to restrict the jurisdiction of the courts, it is not immediately clear why the courts emphasize the words "all income" and ignore the derivation of the entire phrase to interpret this section - except to reach a desired political result.

Arguments about the meaning of the current income tax has continued for nearly 100 years. Courts are reluctant to support a literal reading of the tax laws in favor of potential taxpayers, since it can lead to tax avoidance. Professor Soled points out why judicial doctrines are used against tax avoidance strategies in general,

"The use of judicial doctrines to curtail tax avoidance is pervasive in the area of income taxation. There are several reasons for this phenomenon: central among them is that courts believe that if the Internal Revenue Code ("Code") were read literally, impermissible tax avoidance would become the norm rather than the exception. No matter how perceptive the legislature, it cannot anticipate all events and circumstances that may unfold, and, due to linguistic limitations, statutes do not always capture the essence of what is intended. Judicial doctrines fill the void left either by the legislature or by the words of the Code. Another reason for the popularity of these doctrines is that courts do not want to appear duped by taxpayers..." (Jay A. Soled, Use of Judicial Doctrines in Resolving Transfer Tax Controversies, 42 B.C. L. Rev 587, 588-589 (2001).)

Of course, if the intent of Congress was to actually reach all income then the simplest way to state s. 61 would be "all income ***however realized.***" Instead, s. 61 mentions sources and other sections of the federal tax code actually lists about 20 sources of income that are specifically taxed. (26 USC ss. 861-864.) A common rule of statutory interpretation is the doctrine inclusio unius est exclusio alterius. This doctrine means "[t]he inclusion of one is the exclusion of another... This doctrine decrees that where law expressly describes [a] particular situation to which it shall apply, an irrefutable inference must be drawn that what is omitted or excluded was intended to be omitted or excluded." (Black's Law Dictionary 763 (6th Ed. 1990).) Since particular sources are listed as taxable in the tax law, then it is reasonable to infer that other sources of income are excluded from taxation. This argument is called the "861 source argument" and the courts refuse to analyze the argument despite consistently holding against it, even going so far as to issue restraining orders against people who publish websites about it. (U.S. v. Bell, 238 F.Supp.2d 696, 698 (M.D. Pa. 2003).'

In 1913 the tax rate was 1 percent on taxable net income above $3,000 ($4,000 for married couples), less deductions and exemptions. It rose to a rate of 7 percent on incomes above $500,000.

During World War I the top rate rose to 77 percent; following the war, the top rate was scaled down (to a low of 25 percent).

During the Great Depression and World War II, the top income tax rate rose again, reaching 91% during the war; this top rate remained in effect until 1964.

In 1964 the top rate was decreased to 70% (1964 Revenue Act), and then to 50% in 1981 (Economic Recovery Tax Act or ERTA).

The Tax Reform Act of 1986 reduced the top rate to 28%, at the same time raising the bottom rate from 11% to 15% (in fact 15% and 28% became the only two tax brackets).

During the 1990s the top rate rose again, standing at 39.6% by the end of the decade.

In 2001 the top rate was cut to 35% and the bottom rate was cut to 10% by the EGTRRA, or Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act.

In 2003 the JGTRRA, or Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act, was passed, expanding the 10% tax bracket and accelerating some of the changes passed in the 2001 EGTRRA.

For more free legal information on Tax Law, please visit Free Legal Information.

Other Article Sites

findabook.com  moneycd.info  a-mortgage.info   about-lemon-laws.info  aboutstudentloans.info
all-about-publishing.info  auctions-articles.info  bestcollege-university.com  bestispconnection.com
biblefolder.com  blogger-website.com  books-used.info  brokers-guide.info  buywindows.info  cable-dsl.info
career-miner.com  carpel-tunnel.info  cashinaflash.info  cashloanreviews.info  casinobell.com  chat-house.info
clearmycredit.info  collegeloantips.info  crones.info  depression-articles.info   dirnic.net  dishguides.info
divers-below.com  expodog.info   financewizz.com  fire-insurance.info  getgood.info  handleit.net   it-idea.info
health-supplies.info  hosting-right.com  insidealert.com  insurance-facts.info  jobs-employment.info
justgood.info  lookgold.net   lowcost-travel.info  money-source.info  myhostzone.info  numisblog.com
peoplesearchfinder.info  pr-articles.info  realeas.com   refinancing-guides.info  spyware-remove.info
telelot.info  the-law.info   toppaid.info  travel-deals.info  travelcorrect.com  wedding-guide-site.com
your-blog.info  your-credit.info

Other Law Sites
Search The Internet For Other Law Sites

Law Books
Search For Law Books At FindaBook.com

Fresno Family Law Attorney Says Collaborative Law Can Provide Smoother and More Affordable Divorce
Fresno family law attorney Erin Rhames-Childs says collaborative law can help people can reduce the conflict and cost of divorce litigation.

Legal Resource Local-Attorneys Expands to Include Divorce Law
Local legal resource website Local-Attorneys has announced that it is expanding to cater to divorce law specialists and visitors in need of advice. Web users will be able to browse local law firms who specialize in every sort of legal vertical. Find the best advice and attorneys in the industry.

Lemon Law Attorney, Dana Lynn Tarquini, Featured at Lemon Law Administrators Conference
Ms. Tarquini, one of the country's most prominent lemon law attorneys, participated in panel discussion at the 10th anniversary lemon law administrators conference in Atlantic City.

Tax Attorney Site Answering More Questions on New Tax Laws
TaxAttornyHelp.com, an online tax law attorney service provider, has answers to questions on new tax laws that affect filers in 2008.

Legal Services of Labor Law Attorneys
Labor law attorneys deal with a broad range of labor issues mainly related to how employers treat employees, former employees and applicants for employment. This includes all the areas of the employer-employee relationship, negotiations, and the collective bargaining agreement.

Los Angeles Divorce Attorneys, The Family Law Company, Opens a New Office in Beverly Hills
Los Angeles family law attorney and founder of The Family Law Company Pamela Wright opens a new office in Beverly Hills. The Family Law Company offers high-quality legal services at affordable rates for divorce, paternity, child custody and child support actions because justice doesn't have to cost a fortune.

CalBizCentral Announces Booklets to Help Businesses Navigate State, Federal Employment Laws, Reduce Legal Risk
CalChamber's CalBizCentral 'What Every Manager Needs to Know About' series provides training managers need to comply with confusing laws.

Tax Attorney Web Site Warns of Upcoming Tax Laws in 2008
TaxAttorneyHelp.com, an online network of tax attorneys, is preparing to assist taxpayers with new laws in the coming year.

Elizabeth A. Kreitzer, Certified Family Law Specialist, Joins Klinedinst Family Law Group
The California-based law firm of Klinedinst PC has added Elizabeth A. Kreitzer, Certified Family Law Specialist, to its expanding Family Law practice group. Ms. Kreitzer's addition, combined with the strength of the firm's existing litigation teams, will help ensure that every client receives sophisticated, professional and compassionate representation, Ms. Kreitzer is the recipient of the Michael C. Shea Chair in 2005, and adds a wealth of family law knowledge to the department. She is experienced in working with sophisticated clients handle complex family law issues, including divorce, paternity and custody disputes, prenuptial agreements, adoption proceedings, and other family law matters.

New York City Construction Accident Lawyers Lobby for Safer New York State Labor Laws
Recent construction accident news supports David Perecman and Doug Fanning's stance that New York State labor laws need to be updated and strengthened to protect worker's rights.

Kirsten Branigan Joins McDonald Law Group, LLC Adding Depth in Employment Law
Kirsten Branigan and Nancy McDonald join forces with a shared passion--advocating for advancement of women in the practice of law.

New Legal Guide to Divorce by Family Law Expert
A brand new legal guide to divorce, "Divorce and Separation Today", has been newly published by DragonCub. Far more useful than the average divorce guide, it delves into how the divorce courts operate as well as providing practical and sensible advice on emotional and other sensitive areas. It is an essential guide for anyone considering or going through divorce.

Tax Attorney Roni Deutch Analyzes Proposed Tax Laws in New Featured Blog
After nearly seven months of blogging, tax attorney Roni Deutch has posted a new featured blog analyzing the causes and possible outcomes of a new proposal that is being backed by the Internal Revenue Service. The proposal is part of President Bush's 2008 budget, and attempts to lower the gap in what taxpayers pay and what they should pay in taxes, by requiring many Internet companies to collect personal data from their users.

Divorce Lawyer Says Families Do Not Belong In The Court Of Law
Fresno divorce attorney Erin Rhames-Childs says that the court of law is no place to divorce. The courts are overworked and understaffed - leading to poor legal decisions that are not in the best interests of those involved. Collaborative divorce is a way for couples to divorce while maintaining their dignity, making decisions that truly are in the best interests of their children and preserving their finances. Collaborative divorce is quicker, cheaper, and better for maintaining functional relationships for after the divorce is over.