Updated CRS report on tax protesters

[SteveSy]

Certain taxes require apportionment. The reason was simple, a tax that directly falls on people should be apportioned according to representation.

Yet, Hylton v. U.S., 3 U.S. 171, says otherwise. Daniel Hylton owned carriages. He kept them for his personal use and he did not let them out for hire or for the conveyance of person for hire. Since he only used them for personal use, how does the tax on carriages not fall directly on the owner? Obviously, it does fall directly on the owner. Yet, all four justices that heard the case agreed that the tax was constitutional.

Sure he kept them for personal use all 100+ of them bahahahaha. He might have contended that but its obvious they weren't for personal use.


Here's a quote from that case:

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 proportionally the revenue of its subjects, endeavors to tax it indirectly by taxing their expense, which it is supposed in most cases will be neatly in proportion to their revenue. Their expense is taxed by taxing the consumable commodities upon which it is laid out."

Clearly this justice did not think an income tax falls under the class of indirect taxes. People are assessed on an income tax. Look up "circuitous" in case you don't know what it means. In every other country that we could have derived the phrase direct tax from has labeled a tax on earnings as a direct tax. I guess we redefined the class different than the entire world without telling anyone who would be subject to it.

[The Operative]

Sure he kept them for personal use all 100+ of them bahahahaha. He might have contended that but its obvious they weren't for personal use.

No, it is not obvious. There are plenty of people in our society that collect cars. He might have collected carriages. Shall I give examples? I can name at least one person that had a car collection that exceeded 200 vehicles.

Here's a quote from that case:

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 proportionally the revenue of its subjects, endeavors to tax it indirectly by taxing their expense, which it is supposed in most cases will be neatly in proportion to their revenue. Their expense is taxed by taxing the consumable commodities upon which it is laid out."

Clearly this justice did not think an income tax falls under the class of indirect taxes. People are assessed on an income tax. Look up "circuitous" in case you don't know what it means. In every other country that we could have derived the phrase direct tax from has labeled a tax on earnings as a direct tax. I guess we redefined the class different than the entire world without telling anyone who would be subject to it.

Yet, you left out the prior sentence from that justice.

Apportionment is an operation on states, and involves valuations and assessments, which are arbitrary, and should not be resorted to but in case of necessity.

All of the justices in that case agreed that a tax on carriages would be unfair if apportioned, yet fair, if it was uniform. A tax on incomes would also be unfair if apportioned.

If it can be considered as a tax, neither direct within the meaning of the Constitution, nor comprehended within the term duty, impost or excise; there is no provision in the Constitution, one way or another, and then it must be left to such an operation of the power, as if the authority to lay taxes had been given generally in all instances, without saying whether they should be apportioned or uniform; and in that case, I should presume, the tax ought to be uniform; because the present Constitution was particularly intended to affect individuals, and not states, except in particular cases specified: And this is the leading distinction between the articles of Confederation and the present Constitution.

As all direct taxes must be apportioned, it is evident that the Constitution contemplated none as direct but such as could be apportioned.

If this cannot be apportioned, it is, therefore, not a direct tax in the sense of the Constitution.

Justice Iredell continues with an example using chariots. The same example can be used for income taxes. If you have two states with equal populations and the first state's population has an average annual income of $50,000 per year and the second state's population has an average annual income of $40,000, the second state has a higher burden on their income than the first state, which is unfair.

[Quixote]

Trying to do a mass assessment of all property within the U.S. and come up with an accurate number to apportion it is not easy.

Fortunately for Congress, the constitution does not require such an apportionment. A direct tax does not have to be apportioned by property value. It has to be apportioned among the states according to the census figures. As can be seen from the Treasury report supporting the first national direct tax, apportionment of the tax among the states was very simple. Treasury just multiplied the desired amount of tax by the fraction of the population present in each state.

[SteveSy]

Right, and see how long it took them from the time it went in to law until the time they collected it. It wasn't easy. Anyway, its irrelevant how easy or hard it was to collect as discussed earlier.

[SteveSy]

A common tax protester misconception (that Sybil obviously shares) is that apportionment was intended to make certain kinds of taxes more difficult to impose. Not prevent them, but just make them impractical.

The immediate problem with this thesis is that there is absolutely no historical support for it. No where in any of the constitutional debates, or the Federalist Papers, is there any suggestion that anyone thought that apportionment would hinder the federal government in any way.

Hamilton wrote that he thought that the federal government was not likely to rely on capitations, but that was not because of apportionment but simply because the population didn't have a lot of cash with which to pay a capitation. (One of the practical advantages of an income tax is that the tax is usually imposed on someone who has just received cash with which to pay the tax.)

Here's something from the Federalist to consider:

In every country it is a herculean task to obtain a valuation of the land; in a country imperfectly settled and progressive in improvement, the difficulties are increased almost to impracticability. The expense of an accurate valuation is, in all situations, a formidable objection. In a branch of taxation where no limits to the discretion of the government are to be found in the nature of things, the establishment of a fixed rule, not incompatible with the end, may be attended with fewer inconveniences than to leave that discretion altogether at large.

- Federalist 21 Hamilton

[Quixote]

Right, and see how long it took them from the time it went in to law until the time they collected it. It wasn't easy. Anyway, its irrelevant how easy or hard it was to collect as discussed earlier.

Exactly. The problem was valuation and assessment. The nature of the tax as direct or indirect was irrelevant to the diffuculty of imposing it or administering it.

[Demosthenes]

Sure he kept them for personal use all 100+ of them bahahahaha. He might have contended that but its obvious they weren't for personal use.

You have absolutely no memory, Stevie.

Hylton only had one carriage, and it was for personal use. For the purposes of the Supreme Court case, he stipulated that he had 125 carriages "kept exclusively for the Defendant's own private use" so that the amount disputed could hit the $2,000 minimum required for the Supreme Court to hear a case.

That the Defendant, on the 5th of June, 1794, and therefrom to the last day of September following, owned, possessed, and kept, 125 chariots for the conveyance of persons, and no more: that the chariots were kept exclusively for the Defendant's own private use, and not to let out to hire, or for the conveyance of persons for hire: and that the Defendant had notice according to the act of Congress, entitled 'An act laying duties upon carriages for the conveyance of persons,' but that he omitted and refused to make an entry of the said chariots,and to pay the duties thereupon, as in and by the said recited law is required, alledging that the said law was unconstitutional and void. If the court adjudged the Defendant to be liable to pay the tax and fine for not doing so, and for not entering the carriages, then judgment shall be entered for the Plaintiff for 2000 dollars, to be discharged by the payment of 16 dollars, the amount of the duty and penalty; otherwise that judgment be entered for the Defendant.

Carriages were a luxury item at the time, and there were only 768 of them in the entire US at the time of this court case. They weren't exactly common cabs.

[SteveSy]

And here is something else to consider, The Federalist Papers ARE NOT LAW.

Also, the Federalist Papers were pushing a particular agenda, the ratification of the newly written U.S Constitution over the Articles of Confederation.

That's true....

But it would be ridiculous not to consider their opinions expressed considering we wouldn't have a constitution had it not been for their compromises and their willingness to quell fears of trading one tyrant for a 100.

The opinion of the Federalist has always been considered as of great authority. It is a complete commentary on our Constitution, and is appealed to by all parties in the questions to which that instrument has given birth. Its intrinsic merit entitles it to this high rank, and the part two of its authors performed in framing the Constitution put it very much in their power to explain the views with which it was framed. These essays having been published while the Constitution was before the nation for adoption or rejection, and having been written in answer to objections founded entirely on the extent of its powers, and on its diminution of State sovereignty, are entitled to the more consideration where they [19 U.S. 419] frankly avow that the power objected to is given, and defend it.

- Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264 (1821)

[Famspear]

And here is something else to consider, The Federalist Papers ARE NOT LAW.

Also, the Federalist Papers were pushing a particular agenda, the ratification of the newly written U.S Constitution over the Articles of Confederation.

That's true....

But it would be ridiculous not to consider their opinions expressed considering we wouldn't have a constitution had it not been for their compromises and their willingness to quell fears of trading one tyrant for a 100.

The opinion of the Federalist has always been considered as of great authority. It is a complete commentary on our Constitution, and is appealed to by all parties in the questions to which that instrument has given birth. Its intrinsic merit entitles it to this high rank, and the part two of its authors performed in framing the Constitution put it very much in their power to explain the views with which it was framed. These essays having been published while the Constitution was before the nation for adoption or rejection, and having been written in answer to objections founded entirely on the extent of its powers, and on its diminution of State sovereignty, are entitled to the more consideration where they [19 U.S. 419] frankly avow that the power objected to is given, and defend it.

- Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264 (1821)

Good point, Steve. And indeed the courts have considered the Federalist Papers. And the courts have ruled. The issue has been decided.

[SteveSy]

Good point, Steve. And indeed the courts have considered the Federalist Papers. And the courts have ruled. The issue has been decided.

So? You're right the courts who are appointed, paid by and hand picked based on their willingness to agree with those appointing them agree people owe the income tax. Even if they can't agree, to the point of calling each other's position frivolous, how the income tax is legal within the confines of the constitution. What they all know for sure is that we all owe, they're just not quite sure why nor do they really care why.

[Cpt Banjo]

You're right the courts who are appointed, paid by and hand picked based on their willingness to agree with those appointing them agree people owe the income tax.

Just as patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel, "The courts are corrupt" is the last refuge of a TP.

[The Observer]

Even if they can't agree, to the point of calling each other's position frivolous, how the income tax is legal within the confines of the constitution.

And you keep ignoring the fact that they all agree that the 16th amendment gives the government the right to tax income.

It is at moments like this that I regret we don't have a time machine to send Steve back to the 18th century.

[Famspear]

Good point, Steve. And indeed the courts have considered the Federalist Papers. And the courts have ruled. The issue has been decided.

So? You're right the courts who are appointed, paid by and hand picked based on their willingness to agree with those appointing them agree people owe the income tax. Even if they can't agree, to the point of calling each other's position frivolous, how the income tax is legal within the confines of the constitution. What they all know for sure is that we all owe, they're just not quite sure why nor do they really care why.

Gotcha again, Steve. You said that the Federalist Papers should be considered. And when I responded by pointing out that the Federalist Papers have been considered, you fell back on your mantra-rant about "courts who are appointed, paid by and hand picked based on their willingness to agree [ . . . ]" etc. You fall back on what is essentially an argument along the lines of "well, but because the judges who considered the Federalist Papers didn't come to the same conclusion I did, and anyway the judges are corrupt."

Earth calling Steve: A federal judge is not "hand picked" based on the appointee's willingness to "agree" with those appointing him or her regarding the interpretation of the federal tax laws. Give me a break. Your apparent knowledge of the political process of appointing federal judges is as feeble as your ability to present an argument about taxation without slipping into emotional, crybaby whinery. (Ooooh. A possible new word: "Whinery." Whinery is defined as an emotional state characterized by the production of whining, especially excessive, inappropriate or unduly irritating whining. A winery is where the wine is made, and a whinery is where the whine is made.)

I say your "apparent" knowledge, because there is a real question here as to whether, deep down inside, you really even believe what you are writing, sometimes. Your responses are so childlike, so emotional, so over the top.

[notorial dissent]

SteveSy. The plain facts of the matter, as someone previously pointed out, are that the Federalist Papers, like the Anti-Federalist papers of the time, while being good sources of what the prevailing OPINION was, were first, last, and foremost, political propaganda either for or against a particular point, or in this situation a proposal, each equally biased towards their own viewpoint. To look at them as anything else is the height of ingenuousness, something that seems to be your stock in trade. They were OPINION, nothing more, learned opinion, but opinion none the less. They have no more significance than any other work product, and the only thing that matters is the final result. The wording of the document says you can do this particular thing when you really really really thought hard that it would say something else. Too bad, the word on paper beats the dim thought in your head. The courts have disagreed with you on every point here so far, and their legal opinion-which translates to determination says otherwise to what you want it to say.

[Famspear]

Teacher: "All right class, now who can give me some examples of the use of the term 'whinery'? Can anyone use the word in a sentence?"

[Jeff raises his hand]

Teacher: "Ah, yes - Jeff?"

Jeff: "Uh, OK: When Steve was asked a question about federal tax law, he slipped slowly and surely into suffocating whinery."

Teacher: "Oh, very good, Jeff. And I like the legal allusion along with the alliteration. OK, Susie, you have one as well?"

Susie: "Yes, um. Where Steve's Weltanschauung regarding the taxation of wages was found wanting, he wept as he wobbled and weaved woefully into whinery."

Teacher: "Oh, excellent, Susie. OK, Calvin? You have one?

Calvin: "When working wearily and witlessly on weird words about tax law, Steve will wreak no whinery before its time."

[........rrrrrrringggggggg]

(Saved by the bell!)

[Quixote]

It is difficult to accept the Federalist Papers as even an accurate indication of the authors' opinions. For example, Hamilton, in the Federalist, characterized indirect taxes (excises, duties and imposts) as being taxes that people could avoid paying just by forgoing the activity, or not using the item, being taxed. But when the time came to finance the new country, the first taxes imposed were duties on almost every import, most of which were necessary for life in the new country. Hamilton's second proposal was for an excise on liquor. His main selling point, when addressing Congress, was that the demand for liquor was virtually unaffected by its cost, so the tax could be set quite high without reducing the tax base. The tax could be avoided, but Hamilton knew it would not be.

[Dr. Caligari]

Steve:
Way back on the first page of this thread, I pointed out to you that the intent of the Founders as to the constitutionality of the Income Tax is irrelevant, because we should be looking at the intent of those that ratified the 16th Amendment. You never responded.

[Dr. Caligari]

Steve:
Way back on the first page of this thread, I pointed out to you that the intent of the Founders as to the constitutionality of the Income Tax is irrelevant, because we should be looking at the intent of those that ratified the 16th Amendment. You never responded.

....(crickets)....

[Nikki]

Steve:
Way back on the first page of this thread, I pointed out to you that the intent of the Founders as to the constitutionality of the Income Tax is irrelevant, because we should be looking at the intent of those that ratified the 16th Amendment. You never responded.

Steve never replies to rational questions unless he can channel someone fron the 18th or 19th century.

[LPC]

Steve:
Way back on the first page of this thread, I pointed out to you that the intent of the Founders as to the constitutionality of the Income Tax is irrelevant, because we should be looking at the intent of those that ratified the 16th Amendment. You never responded.

....(crickets)....

Details, details. Steve's got better things to do with his time than deal with reality.