Expect this one to be the ralling cry

[SteveSy]

SteveSy asked:

So congress can lay a non-apportioned direct tax?

If it's an income tax, Congress can validly lay it, impose it, levy it, collect it, enforce it, etc., etc., whether it is a direct tax or an indirect tax, and can do so without apportionment.

Well you're wrong and that is well settled by the Supreme Court. Better start actually researching.

I'm not quite sure how your brain works but this alone proves you are wrong.

hitherto unknown power of taxation -- that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes

Let's break this down. "nknown power" means no one of authority knows of or accepts it as a valid power.

"[A] power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes" means exactly what it says. A tax that is direct but not subject to apportionment like all other direct taxes. Now we put "nknown power" in front of that and it means there is no such thing.

[SteveSy]

There is no such thing as quantum law. It can't be that direct taxes must always be apportioned and then have a direct non-apportioned tax at the same time. It can't be that it's not a direct tax and but instead an excise AND be a direct tax and not an excise at the same time. There aren't any "nuances and multiple meanings" hidden within....only idocy and ineptitude to make such a claim.

Check this out, stevesy. The SC said you can have a "direct tax on income" and must not "take an income tax out of the class of excises, duties and imposts" at the same time.

I know what they meant, do you?

...the purpose [of the Amendment] was not to change the existing interpretation except to the extent necessary to accomplish the result intended, that is, the prevention of the resort to the sources from which a taxed income was derived in order to cause a direct tax on the income to be a direct tax on the source itself and thereby to take an income tax out of the class of excises, duties and imposts and place it in the class of direct taxes.

[ 240 U.S. Page 20] Brushaber

Nice attempt at confusion....It's obvious they are using the term "direct" in two different contexts.

In the cases I quoted and the quote from the IRS it's clear they are intending "direct" to mean the constitutional "direct" which requires apportionment. They are obviously claiming that there is one type of "direct tax" that is exempt from apportionment due to the 16th. the 16th did nothing but clarify a proper interpritation of the constitution. Nothing was changed as far as what power of taxation the govenment had. If it's a constitutional direct tax it still requires apportionment.

[Famspear]

Dear SteveSy: I'm calling it quits for the night, but just to close - when I say that I am not a "tax advocate" what I mean is that my explanation of the law in a tax protester-related forum is not based on a desire to show that the Federal income tax law as currently imposed is somehow fair, or wise, or good public policy, or whatever. The wisdom of having this tax law is a separate issue. Of course, I or other writers here may actually "like" the tax or think it is fair or whatever, or we might not like the tax -- but that is not our motivation for trying to explain what the law is.

'night to all.

[Famspear]

SteveSy wrote:

Well you're wrong and that is well settled by the Supreme Court. Better start actually researching.

I'm not quite sure how your brain works but this alone proves you are wrong.

Well, one more time, Steve. No, that doesn't prove me wrong. The case you are quoting from proves me CORRECT.

YOU had better start actually researching, because while you are confused, we can see very well how your brain works. You completely flubbed this one. Better yet, just leave it to the experts.

You are citing from a Supreme Court decision that UPHELD the Federal income tax as constitutional.

[Famspear]

The three main holdings in Brushaber:

-----1. The unapportioned income tax imposed by the Revenue Act of 1913 is not required to be apportioned, and is not unconstitutional.

-----2. The Revenue Act of 1913 does not violate the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against the government taking property without due process of law.

-----3. The Revenue Act of 1913 does not violate the uniformity clause of Article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.

So sorry.

[natty]

Nice attempt at confusion....It's obvious they are using the term "direct" in two different contexts.

In the cases I quoted and the quote from the IRS it's clear they are intending "direct" to mean the constitutional "direct" which requires apportionment. They are obviously claiming that there is one type of "direct tax" that is exempt from apportionment due to the 16th. the 16th did nothing but clarify a proper interpritation of the constitution. Nothing was changed as far as what power of taxation the govenment had. If it's a constitutional direct tax it still requires apportionment.

So you understand the meaning of "direct" depends on its context. That is what I was pointing out- how was that an attempt at confusion?

And how do you know what the appellate courts and IRS means? Are you the one switching around the contexts? Even if those lower courts are saying the income tax is a direct tax that does not require apportionment, you know that Brushaber said the income tax is in the class of excises, duties and imposts. The RESULT is the only thing that is significant.

Since you know that every court has held an income tax does not require apportionment, how does any of the stuff you have posted help your cause?

In conclusion:
All direct taxes must be apportioned.
A direct tax on income does not require apportionment.
A direct tax on income is an income tax.
Therefore, an income tax is not a direct tax.

[Quixote]

SteveSy asked:

So congress can lay a non-apportioned direct tax?

If it's an income tax, Congress can validly lay it, impose it, levy it, collect it, enforce it, etc., etc., whether it is a direct tax or an indirect tax, and can do so without apportionment.

Well you're wrong and that is well settled by the Supreme Court. Better start actually researching.

I'm not quite sure how your brain works but this alone proves you are wrong.

hitherto unknown power of taxation -- that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes

Let's break this down. "nknown power" means no one of authority knows of or accepts it as a valid power.

"[A] power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes" means exactly what it says. A tax that is direct but not subject to apportionment like all other direct taxes. Now we put "nknown power" in front of that and it means there is no such thing.

Famspear's answer is correct. Congress can impose a direct non-apportioned tax, if it's an income tax. Congress can also repeal the law of gravity in they do so on February 30. If you insist on asking silly questions, don't complain when you don't understand the answers you get. The Brushaber court stated that all income taxes are indirect. Under their analysis, there is no such thing as a direct income tax. Your question implicitly assumes the Brushaber court was wrong, and that a direct income tax is a possibility.

[LPC]

So congress can lay a non-apportioned direct tax?

Your question is ambiguous.

If you are asking, "Can Congress lay a non-apportioned and non-uniform tax?", the answer is no.

If you are asking, "Can Congress lay a non-apportioned income tax that is applied directly to the American people?", the answer is yes.

Which question are you asking? Or are you asking a different question?

It's not ambiguous. You intentionally removed the word "direct".

Of course I did, to remove the ambiguity.

The words "direct tax" in the Constitution could not possibly mean "all taxes collected directly from the people," because then *all* excises collected directly from the people would be "direct," the Constitution would conflict with itself by requiring excises to be both apportioned and uniform (which is impossible), and the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court in Hylton in 1796 would be wrong.

So, when you ask about a "direct" tax, I need to know whether you mean a "direct tax" within the meaning of the Constitution or a tax that is collected directly.

Can congress lay a "direct" non-apportioned income tax.

Once again, ambiguous.

If you are asking if Congress can lay a non-apportioned income tax, the answer is yes (obviously), because that's what the 16th Amendment says.

If you are asking whether Congress can lay an income tax that is "direct" within the meaning of the Constitution, the answer according to the Supreme Court in the Brushaber decision is no, because if an income tax were "direct" then it would not be an excise and would not need to be uniform.

The bottom line is that you are still searching desperately for some semantic loophole that will allow you to think that you can believe that the income tax is unconstitutional and be right. But you can't, because the 16th Amendment means what it says.

[jg]

If you are asking if Congress can lay a non-apportioned income tax, the answer is yes (obviously), because that's what the 16th Amendment says.

But to SteveSy what it says is a matter that he decides despite what anyone else, including the judiciary, says.

Sure the government has the power to lay and collect taxes and spend it providing they follow the constitutional rules (which they don't), but it must be for the “general welfare”, not local. It must be for something that affects all States and a majority of the population. Anything less is unconstitutional plain and simple. You don’t need to be a high paid lawyer or some judge to look up the history and read it for yourself to know that these are the facts regardless of what someone else might say. Oh, and I could really couldn't care less what a some federal judge says who is appointed by and paid by the very people trying to usurp the constitution. If the facts says otherwise that's what I accept. Do I decide the law for myself, yes I do, it's my right. The law is public for the public. Do I always decide the law in my favor, no, I do not. I accept for instance the government has the power to lay a VAT. Would I like a VAT, no I personally would like not to pay any taxes as would most. However I accept based on the facts that the federal government has this power. A general income tax fails every common sense test.

emphasis added

SteveSy has decided for himself that the income tax is unconstitutional and it seems that no amount of discussion will change his decision (though you will be able to change the reason(s) provided).

[Duke2Earl]

You Steve, cannot hope to understand how to perform proper legal analysis by approaching it the way you do. I have a suggestion: Leave the legal analysis to the experts.

I see the sort of "analysis" Sybil uses all the time, even among "experts." I call it the "Answer in search of a rationale" dance. We start with an answer... you pick the answer. In this case it's I can't possibly owe all these taxes to this corrupt government as the start of "analysis." Then you go through every word ever written and pull out anomolies. I see this in clients who know taxes are legal as well when they want me to read backwards and sideways to justify why an gain is say, capital v. ordinary. TP's all KNOW that taxes are stealing and immoral.... all the rest is simply rationalizations.

[SteveSy]

The Brushaber court stated that all income taxes are indirect. Under their analysis, there is no such thing as a direct income tax. Your question implicitly assumes the Brushaber court was wrong, and that a direct income tax is a possibility.

At the same time you assume without fact that an income tax, the one they speak of, includes a tax on everyone's earnings. The Supreme Court has never stated such a thing. Also, considering the tax back then taxed less than 1% of the people that’s a huge reach on your part.

For one there is no such thing as a constitutional "income tax". The constitution doesn't allow for an income tax. It allows for direct taxes, excises, duties and imports. An "income tax" must fall in to one of those categories.

Since the Supreme Court has said that the "income tax", the context being 1913-1916 because that's when it was decided, is an excise we must know what an excise can tax. Thankfully the Supreme Court has made it clear what an excise is on too many occasions to count.

Duties and imposts are terms commonly applied to levies made by governments on the importation or exportation of commodities. Excises are
taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale, or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, and upon corporate privileges.

-Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 (1911)

Or, you could just look up the definition in any dictionary, legal or otherwise. If you were right "income" would appear in the definition because under your belief any kind of a tax on income is an excise. The truth is "income taxes" fall under that category of excises because it goes after the revenue of the things that fall within the definition of excises. Congress has always had the power to tax those things and the measure of the tax being whatever they wanted, including income. That is why the Supreme Court specifically said the 16th created no new power of taxation.

A tax on income generally would include a direct tax on people therefore such a tax would require in part apportionment. It wouldn't be a "income tax" it would be in part a direct tax. As has already been show you dozens of times capitation taxes have been laid in the past using income as the measure. The only quotes available from anyone in our early history called a general tax on income a "direct tax", this has also been shown many times here. You or anyone else has ever produced a single quote from anyone around the time of the constitution saying otherswise.

Of course you will, as usual, attempt to explain all this away. You will attempt to claim dictionaries do not matter. You will imply that the Supreme Court modified the meaning of excises to include the word income even though they never said such a thing. You will imply that the definition I've offered is not conclusive, yet you will never produce one that includes the word income. Tell me again Quioxte, is it a giant blunder by every historian, legal professional and scholar who contributed to every dictionary out there to miss your definition. Did you outwit them all and get it right? I seriously doubt it...actually it's laughable.

The 16th merely prevented an interpretation, one that the Supreme Court in Pollock used. It prevents resorting to the source to take what was in the category of excises and place it in the category of direct taxes due to the source, in that case income from corporate property. Corporate privileges had always been considered taxable by excises, the measure of the tax being whatever they wanted, including income. This is exactly why Flint, a tax that got to corporate income, was decided as constitutional even though the 16th wasn't even rattified yet.

Albert Gallatin
Sketch of the Finances of the United States (1796)
The most generally received opinion, however, is that, by direct taxes in the Constitution, those are meant which are raised on the capital or revenue of the people; by indirect, such as are raised on their expense

The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution [Elliot's Debates, Volume 4]
Direct Taxes. May 6, 1794
He said that, so far as he had been able to form au opinion, there had been a general concurrence in a belief that the ultimate sources of public contributions were labor, and the subjects and effects of labor; that taxes, being permanent, had a tendency to equalize, and to diffuse themselves through a community. According to these opinions, a capitation tax, and taxes on land, and on property and income generally, were a direct charge, as well in the immediate as ultimate sources of contribution. He had considered those, and those only, as direct taxes in their operation and effects.

[Nikki]

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.

I fail to see anything in there regarding an interpretetion.

The language is fairly clear and specific.

Steve's circumlocutions and rhetoric fail to rebut the clear language of the amendment and the various enabling and taxing legislations over the years.

Steve hates the income tax. He hates the way the government spends the money collected. He hates his ex-wife's receipt of alimony and government benefits.

Steved will continue to whine and spew irational rhetoric until the day comes that someone shovels dirt onto his face.

[Famspear]

SteveSy wrote:

For one there is no such thing as a constitutional "income tax". The constitution doesn't allow for an income tax.

Steve, I'm wondering if you're hitting the bottle or something. A little early in the day for this, isn't it?

You are completely wrong, and you are delusional.

The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the constitutionality of Federal income taxes. Go back and read cases like Brushaber, Stanton, and Merchants' Loan.

[Cpt Banjo]

Thankfully the Supreme Court has made it clear what an excise is on too many occasions to count.

Duties and imposts are terms commonly applied to levies made by governments on the importation or exportation of commodities. Excises are taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale, or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, and upon corporate privileges.

-Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 (1911)

As everyone (except possibly Stevie) knows, the Flint definition is woefully incomplete. For example, it doesn't mention estate taxes, which the Knowlton decision in 1901 had held to be excises. Stevie also refuses to acknowledge the most recent Supreme Court definition of an excise, as set forth in the Bromley case, and to try to explain how a tax on a gratuitious transfer is an excise, but one on a transfer for value (e.g., the payment of consideration in exchange for labor) isn't.

Of course you will, as usual, attempt to explain all this away. You will attempt to claim dictionaries do not matter. You will imply that the Supreme Court modified the meaning of excises to include the word income even though they never said such a thing.

Yes they did, Stevie. Read Springer, where the Court held that the Civil War income tax was in the nature of an excise or duty and was not a direct tax.

But then in Stevie's warped world, 18th century legal dictionaries are the law, not Supreme Court decisions.

[Famspear]

SteveSy wrote:

Do I decide the law for myself, yes I do, it’s my right.

Steve, you are, of course, delusional on that point. You do not have a “right” to decide for yourself what the law is, any more than I would have the right to decide for myself what the law is. You can decide for yourself what you BELIEVE the law is – but your belief is not determinative of what the law is. I know that you also reject the United States Supreme Court rulings upholding the constitutionality of the Federal income tax, and that’s why I’m rubbing it in once again. The following materials are adapted from material I posted in another place.


THE BRUSHABER CASE

Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, 240 U.S. 1, 36 S. Ct. 236 (1916). Again, the three main holdings in Brushaber:

-----1. The unapportioned income tax imposed by the Revenue Act of 1913 is not required to be apportioned, and is not unconstitutional.

-----2. The Revenue Act of 1913 does not violate the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against the government taking property without due process of law.

-----3. The Revenue Act of 1913 does not violate the uniformity clause of Article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.


THE STANTON CASE

Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916). The Stanton case "was commenced by the appellant [John R. Stanton] as a stockholder of the Baltic Mining Company, the appellee, to enjoin [i.e., prevent] the voluntary payment by the corporation and its officers of the tax assessed against it under the income tax section of the tariff act of October 3, 1913." On a direct appeal from the trial court, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision, which had dismissed Stanton's motion (i.e., had rejected Stanton's request) for a court order to prevent Baltic Mining Company from paying the income tax.

Mr. Stanton argued that the tax law was unconstitutional and void under the Fifth Amendment in that the law denied "to mining companies and their stockholders equal protection of the laws and deprive[d] them of their property without due process of law." The Supreme Court rejected that argument.

Mr. Stanton also argued that the Sixteenth Amendment "authorizes only an exceptional direct income tax without apportionment, to which the tax in question does not conform" and that therefore the income tax was "not within the authority of that Amendment." The Court also rejected this argument.

Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. is a leading case where the Court's ruling contradicts the tax protesters' argument that the income tax is unconstitutional. In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the income tax under the 1913 Act under both the Fifth Amendment and the Sixteenth Amendment.


THE MERCHANTS' LOAN CASE

One argument repeatedly made by tax protesters is that the income of individuals is not taxable because income should mean only "corporate profits" or "corporate gain." This is the so-called ''Merchants' Loan'' argument, named after the case of Merchants’ Loan & Trust Company, as Trustee of the Estate of Arthur Ryerson, Deceased, Plaintiff in Error v. Julius F. Smietanka, formerly United States Collector of Internal Revenue for the First District of the State of Illinois, 255 U.S. 509 (1921).

The protesters' Merchants' Loan argument is essentially that "income" for Federal income tax purposes means ''only'' the income of a "corporation" -- not the income of a non-corporate taxpayer -- because the United States Supreme Court in that case, in discussing the meaning of "income," mentioned a statute enacted in 1909 that taxed the income of ''corporations''.

The Court in ''Merchants' Loan'' was specifically interpreting a 1916 statute imposing income taxes on ''individuals and estates'' (among other kinds of entities), and not the 1909 corporate tax statute. The taxpayer in ''Merchants' Loan'' was ''not a corporation'' but was the "Estate of Arthur Ryerson, Deceased." The Court was not presented with (and did not decide) any issue involving the taxability of "corporate profits" or "corporate gains" or any other kind of income except the gain on the sale of the stock by the "Estate of Arthur Ryerson, Deceased." The terms "corporate profit" and "corporate gain" are not found in the text of the Court’s decision in ''Merchants’ Loan''.

In ''Merchants' Loan'' the Supreme Court ruled that under the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the 1916 tax statute applicable at the time, a gain on a sale of stock by the estate of a deceased person is included in the income of that estate, and is therefore taxable to that estate for Federal income tax purposes.

Here are three United States Supreme Court cases repeatedly cited by tax protesters – three cases where, unfortunately, the Court UPHELD the Federal income tax as constitutional.

--Famspear

[jg]

Since the Supreme Court has said that the "income tax", the context being 1913-1916 because that's when it was decided, is an excise we must know what an excise can tax. Thankfully the Supreme Court has made it clear what an excise is on too many occasions to count.

Duties and imposts are terms commonly applied to levies made by governments on the importation or exportation of commodities. Excises are
taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale, or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, and upon corporate privileges.

-Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 (1911)

Or, you could just look up the definition in any dictionary, legal or otherwise. If you were right "income" would appear in the definition because under your belief any kind of a tax on income is an excise. The truth is "income taxes" fall under that category of excises because it goes after the revenue of the things that fall within the definition of excises. Congress has always had the power to tax those things and the measure of the tax being whatever they wanted, including income. That is why the Supreme Court specifically said the 16th created no new power of taxation.

As I have pointed out repeatedly the term "excise" refers to both a category of taxes and to a particular type of tax.
As has been cited to you repeatedly, the same justices save one wrote about the Corporate Tax Act of 1909 in STRATTON'S INDEPENDENCE v. HOWBERT 231 U.S. 399

As has been repeatedly remarked, the corporation tax act of 1909 was not intended to be and is not, in any proper sense, an income tax law. This court had decided in the Pollock Case that the income tax law of 1894 amounted in effect to a direct tax upon property, and was invalid because not apportioned according to populations, as prescribed by the Constitution. The act of 1909 avoided this difficulty by imposing not an income tax, but an excise tax upon the conduct of business in a corporate capacity, measuring, however, the amount of tax by the income of the corporation, with certain qualifications prescribed by the act itself. Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. 220 U.S. 107, 55 L. ed. 389, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 342, Ann. Cas. 1912 B, 1312; McCoach v. Minehill & S. H. R. Co. 228 U.S. 295, 57 L. ed. 842, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 419; United States v. Whitridge ( decided at this term, 231 U.S. 144, 58 L. ed. --, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 24.

Full case at http://supreme.justia.com/us/231/399/case.html

Your inability or unwillingness to understand the difference between an excise tax and the class of excise taxes does not limit the application of the income tax.

That you continue to attempt to apply the definition of an excise tax, which is not an income tax, of the Supreme Court in Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. to attempt to limit the application of the income tax is dishonest and disingenuous.

[jg]

A tax on income generally would include a direct tax on people therefore such a tax would require in part apportionment. It wouldn't be a "income tax" it would be in part a direct tax. As has already been show you dozens of times capitation taxes have been laid in the past using income as the measure. The only quotes available from anyone in our early history called a general tax on income a "direct tax", this has also been shown many times here. You or anyone else has ever produced a single quote from anyone around the time of the constitution saying otherswise.

It is not certain if this is a bold faced lie or selective memory; but you have certainly been shown this from the case of SPRINGER v. U S, 102 U.S. 586 (1880)

Hamilton left behind him a series of legal briefs, and among them one entitled 'Carriage tax.' See vol. vii. p. 848, of his works. This paper was evidently prepared with a view to the Hylton case, in which he appeared as one of the counsel for the United States. In it he says: 'What is the distinction between direct and indirect taxes? It is a matter of regret that terms so uncertain and vague in so important a point are to be found in the Constitution. We shall seek in vain for any antecedent settled legal meaning to the respective terms. There is none. We shall be as much at a loss to find any disposition of either which can satisfactorily determine the point.' There being many carriages in some of the States, and very few in others, he points out the preposterous consequences if such a tax be laid and collected on the principle of apportionment instead of the rule of uniformity. He insists that if the tax there in question was a direct tax, so would be a tax on ships, according to their tonnage. He suggests that the boundary line between direct and indirect taxes be settled by 'a species of arbitration,' and that direct taxes be held to be only 'capitation or poll taxes, and taxes on lands and buildings, and general assessments, whether on the whole property of individuals or on their whole real or personal estate. All else must, of necessity, be considered as indirect taxes.'

Full case at http://supreme.justia.com/us/102/586/case.html

Your inability to distinguish an income tax from a capitation does not make the current income tax, in any part , a capitation subject to apportionment.

[SteveSy]

The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the constitutionality of Federal income taxes. Go back and read cases like Brushaber, Stanton, and Merchants' Loan.

Yep, they sure have just none on the earnings of the average person. Actually there hasn't been one single case ever concerning the constitutionality of taxing a wage or salary earner on his earnings. There are a multitude of cases concerning corporate income and the earnings of federally licensed businesses.

[SteveSy]

A tax on income generally would include a direct tax on people therefore such a tax would require in part apportionment. It wouldn't be a "income tax" it would be in part a direct tax. As has already been show you dozens of times capitation taxes have been laid in the past using income as the measure. The only quotes available from anyone in our early history called a general tax on income a "direct tax", this has also been shown many times here. You or anyone else has ever produced a single quote from anyone around the time of the constitution saying otherswise.

It is not certain if this is a bold faced lie or selective memory; but you have certainly been shown this from the case of SPRINGER v. U S, 102 U.S. 586 (1880)

Hamilton left behind him a series of legal briefs, and among them one entitled 'Carriage tax.' See vol. vii. p. 848, of his works. This paper was evidently prepared with a view to the Hylton case, in which he appeared as one of the counsel for the United States. In it he says: 'What is the distinction between direct and indirect taxes? It is a matter of regret that terms so uncertain and vague in so important a point are to be found in the Constitution. We shall seek in vain for any antecedent settled legal meaning to the respective terms. There is none. We shall be as much at a loss to find any disposition of either which can satisfactorily determine the point.' There being many carriages in some of the States, and very few in others, he points out the preposterous consequences if such a tax be laid and collected on the principle of apportionment instead of the rule of uniformity. He insists that if the tax there in question was a direct tax, so would be a tax on ships, according to their tonnage. He suggests that the boundary line between direct and indirect taxes be settled by 'a species of arbitration,' and that direct taxes be held to be only 'capitation or poll taxes, and taxes on lands and buildings, and general assessments, whether on the whole property of individuals or on their whole real or personal estate. All else must, of necessity, be considered as indirect taxes.'

Full case at http://supreme.justia.com/us/102/586/case.html

Your inability to distinguish an income tax from a capitation does not make the current income tax, in any part , a capitation subject to apportionment.

Uniformity is an instant operation on individuals, without the intervention of assessments, or any regard to states, and is at once easy, certain, and efficacious. All taxes on expenses or consumption are indirect taxes. A tax on carriages is of this kind, and of course is not a direct tax. Indirect taxes are circuitous modes of reaching the revenue of individuals, who generally live according to their income. In many cases of this nature the individual may be said to tax himself. I shall close the discourse with reading a passage or two from Smith's Wealth of Nations.
“The impossibility of taxing people in proportion to their revenue, by any capitation, seems to have given occasion to the invention of taxes upon consumable commodities; the state not knowing how to tax directly and proportionably the revenue of its subjects, endeavours to tax it indirectly by taxing their expense...

- Hylton v. United States 3 Dallas (3 U.S.) 171 (1796) (emphasis mine)

Next...

More importantly if your theory that Springer held that all taxes on income were indirect then the Pollock case would never have existed, because they would have lost from the word go. Springer was unique due to Springer's circumstances...the Supreme Court in Pollock stated so. Besides, like I said he fell within the generally accepted definition of an excise, he was a federally licensed lawyer.

[natty]

The truth is "income taxes" fall under that category of excises because it goes after the revenue of the things that fall within the definition of excises. Congress has always had the power to tax those things and the measure of the tax being whatever they wanted, including income. That is why the Supreme Court specifically said the 16th created no new power of taxation.

Everything you post, stevesy, is idiotic. I'll just pick one and show your error.

If you exchange your labor-or another way to say it-your work product-for something else of value, that is an excise taxable activity. If you realize a gain from that activity, that is income. So your "definition of excise" theory is crap.

And, the SC said the 16th created no new power of taxation because some had argued, like you are arguing, the 16th merely authorized a limited income tax. Part of that argument is that the 16th took away the apportionment requirement on an otherwise direct tax. That would have been a "new power" of taxation. Of course the truth is ALL income taxes fall within the category of excises. That is why no income tax requires apportionment.