Misplaced Pages

Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 02:37, 15 July 2004 view sourceRadiojon (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users14,611 editsmNo edit summary← Previous edit Revision as of 07:48, 6 August 2004 view source Branddobbe (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers6,730 edits {{US Constitution}}Next edit →
Line 13: Line 13:
* describing failure of Benson-inspired arguments in court * describing failure of Benson-inspired arguments in court


{{US Constitution}}
----

<center>
<table border="1" cellpadding="6">
<tr>
<td align="center">]</td>
<td align="center"><strong>Amendments</strong>
<br>]</td>
<td align="center">]</td>
</tr>
</table>
</center>


] ]

Revision as of 07:48, 6 August 2004

Amendment XVI (the Sixteenth Amendment) of the United States Constitution, authorizing a graduated income tax, was ratified on February 3, 1913. 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.

Interpretation and history

The U.S. Congress had previously attempted a federal income tax which was declared unconstitutional in 1895 as a "direct tax", forbidden by Article I of the Constitution unless apportioned by population. (Such apportionment is impractical for income taxes, since the rates would have to be set differently in different states depending on their population and total incomes.) In response, this amendment was passed in order to make federal income taxes constitutional.

Some Americans who object to income taxes claim that the Sixteenth Amendment was never properly ratified. The best-known proponent of this claim is Bill Benson, author of the book The Law That Never Was. However, federal courts have rejected appeals based on these claims, and some now consider them "frivolous" claims that are subject to sanction.

External links

Constitution of the United States
Articles
Amendments
Bill of Rights
1795–1804
Reconstruction
20th century
Unratified
Proposed
Formation
Clauses
Interpretation
Signatories
Convention President
New Hampshire
Massachusetts
Connecticut
New York
New Jersey
Pennsylvania
Delaware
Maryland
Virginia
North Carolina
South Carolina
Georgia
Convention Secretary
Related
Display
and legacy
Categories: