| Revision as of 09:53, 21 October 2004 view source66.53.50.25 (talk) →Interpretation and history← Previous edit | Revision as of 10:00, 21 October 2004 view source 66.53.50.25 (talk) →Interpretation and historyNext edit → | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
| Some Americans who object to income taxes claim that the Sixteenth Amendment was never properly ]. The best-known proponent of this claim is ], author of the book '']''. | Some Americans who object to income taxes claim that the Sixteenth Amendment was never properly ]. The best-known proponent of this claim is ], author of the book '']''. | ||
| In spite of the questionable ratification of the 16th amendment, the amendment was certified in 1913 making it part of the Constitution. Federal courts have rejected ]s based on these ]s, and some now consider them "frivolous" claims that are subject to ]. Whereas most amendments protect the freedoms of citizens (Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, right to vote, etc.), income tax takes away the natural right of a citizen to keep the all the fruits of his or her labor. Some believe income tax should be an optional donation by the citizen |
In spite of the questionable ratification of the 16th amendment, the amendment was certified in 1913 making it part of the Constitution. Federal courts have rejected ]s based on these ]s, and some now consider them "frivolous" claims that are subject to ]. Whereas most amendments protect the freedoms of citizens (Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, right to vote, etc.), income tax takes away the natural right of a citizen to keep the all the fruits of his or her labor. Some believe income tax should be an optional donation by the citizen, not a mandatory law with an enforced penalty. Critics say that the 16th Amendment is contrary to the 9th Amendment - the protection of ] not covered by the original ten amendments. | ||
| ==External links== | ==External links== | ||
Revision as of 10:00, 21 October 2004
Amendment XVI (the Sixteenth Amendment) of the United States Constitution, authorizing income taxes in their present form, 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 Income Tax Act of 1894 attempted to impose a federal tax of 2% on incomes over $4,000. Derided by its opponents as "communistic", it was challenged in federal court. In the case of Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. (1895), the Supreme Court declared it to be an unconstitutional "direct tax", forbidden by Article I of the Constitution unless apportioned by population. Such apportionment was 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.
In Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., (1916), the Supreme Court ruled that the amendment created a narrow exception, into which only taxes on income from all sources could fit. All other taxes must still pass the "direct taxes must be apportioned" test of Article I. It also ruled that the Amendment was not retroactive.
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. In spite of the questionable ratification of the 16th amendment, the amendment was certified in 1913 making it part of the Constitution. Federal courts have rejected appeals based on these claims, and some now consider them "frivolous" claims that are subject to sanction. Whereas most amendments protect the freedoms of citizens (Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, right to vote, etc.), income tax takes away the natural right of a citizen to keep the all the fruits of his or her labor. Some believe income tax should be an optional donation by the citizen, not a mandatory law with an enforced penalty. Critics say that the 16th Amendment is contrary to the 9th Amendment - the protection of natural rights not covered by the original ten amendments.
External links
- National Archives: 16th Amendment
- "The Law That Never Was" — Bill Benson's website disputing its ratification
- Frauds and Scams site describing failure of Benson-inspired arguments in court
- Brushaber Decision Supreme Court opinion on the apportionment clause of the Constitution.
- Stanton Decision no new power of taxation