Why what?
JWK
Why are you allowed to ignore the 16th amendment?
Um, he’s not? Not that it stops him…
Why are you making something up?
I specifically pointed out the 16th Amendment did not repeal the constitutional requirement that “direct” taxes must be apportioned among the states. I even provide three Supreme Court opinions confirming that “direct” taxes are still required to be apportioned. And, I also provided a Supreme Court opinion in which the use of the 16th Amendment to tax income was struck down as violating the direct tax provisions in our Constitution.
In this case, Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920), the Court concluded:
“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.”
JWK
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 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
Sorry but it does.
The amendment as you quoted it does not read The Congress shall have power to lay and collect direct taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Additionally, our Constitution, in crystal clear language does declare: No Capitation. or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
And that is why the Court struck down the tax on incomes in Eisner vs Macomber and concluded:
“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.”
JWK
Delusional post.
Taxes means ALL taxes.
The Supreme Court did not see it your way!
No I don’t. The two issues are not even related. Like pretty much everything else you assert that others think, you are wrong again.
The definition of slavery does not include being beaten.
You equate taxes with slavery, so you want govt services which taxes pay
for for free.
no it wasnt. like a lot of tax protestors your skipping part of the decision
just as we deem the legislative intent manifest to tax the stockholder with respect to such accumulations only if and when, and to the extent that, his interest in them comes to fruition as income, that is, in dividends declared, so we can perceive no constitutional obstacle that stands in the way of carrying out this intent when dividends are declared out of a pre-existing surplus… Congress was at liberty under the amendment to tax as income, without apportionment, everything that became income, in the ordinary sense of the word, after the adoption of the amendment, including dividends received in the ordinary course by a stockholder from a corporation, even though they were extraordinary in amount and might appear upon analysis to be a mere realization in possession of an inchoate and contingent interest that the stockholder had in a surplus of corporate assets previously existing
macomber only applied to dividends not income
The two issues are not connected. One is a belief and the other is an attitude.
Nope sorry.
You should be. You had the opportunity to reinvent yourself in this new Forum but you blew it.
Thank you for agreeing the tax in macomber under the 16th amendment was struck down. And why was it struck down? One reason was because it was a direct tax and not apportioned.
As the Court concluded:
“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.”
_
The bottom line is, if a tax laid under the 16th Amendment takes the form of a direct tax, as it did in Macomber, it is forbidden unless apportioned.
JWK
If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property. POLLOCK v. FARMERS’ LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)
it was struck down because the courts ruled that stock dividends weren’t income. it did nothing to change the tax on INCOMES
