This is just a wild guess, but I suspect that the quote is from Howard Zaritsky, while he was serving as Legislative Attorney, American Law Division of the Library of Congress, and it appeared in Report No. 80-19A, published in 1979, entitled “Some Constitutional Questions Regarding The Federal Income Tax Laws”, at page CRS-5.justinprime wrote:I cannot seem to locate a primary source for this quote, though I am seeing the actual quote all over the place. Anyone have a link or anything to actually support this? Pete uses this as well.The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Chief Justice White, first noted that the Sixteenth Amendment did not authorize any new type of tax, nor did it repeal or revoke the tax clauses of Article I of the Constitution, quoted above. Direct taxes were, notwithstanding the advent of the Sixteenth Amendment, still subject to the rule of apportionment and indirect taxes were still subject to the rule of uniformity."
Howard M. Zaritsky, Legislative Attorney, American Law Division of the Library of Congress, Report No. 80-19A, entitled “Some Constitutional Questions Regarding The Federal Income Tax Laws”, page CRS-5 (1979).
But that's just a guess.
Really, these morons couldn't find their own butts with a map, a flashlight, and both hands.
Coincidentally, I had an exchange of emails with Howard within the last week about some estate tax questions in which we both have interests. (He's a nationally recognized expert on estate and gift tax planning.) I may point him to the Lost Horizons site to see if he approves, or can even understand, the way in which some of his writing has been twisted.
