Why was the 16th amendment created?
I understand what it does, but I don't really get why it was needed. Thanks =]
forgot to add in the actual amendment. sorry.
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.
- BeachBumLv 710 years agoFavorite Answer
The ratification of this Amendment was the direct consequence of the Court's decision in 1895 in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., whereby the attempt of Congress the previous year to tax incomes uniformly throughout the United States was held by a divided court to be unconstitutional.
A tax on incomes derived from property, the Court declared, was a ``direct tax'' which Congress under the terms of Article I, Sec. 2, and Sec. 9, could impose only by the rule of apportionment according to population, although scarcely fifteen years prior the Justices had unanimously sustained the collection of a similar tax during the Civil War, the only other occasion preceding the Sixteenth Amendment in which Congress had ventured to utilize this method of raising revenue.
The Court conceded that taxes on incomes from ``professions, trades, employments, or vocations'' levied by this act were excise taxes and therefore valid. The entire statute, however, was voided on the ground that Congress never intended to permit the entire ``burden of the tax to be borne by professions, trades, employments, or vocations'' after real estate and personal property had been exempted
During the interim between the Pollock decision in 1895 and the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913, the Court gave evidence of a greater awareness of the dangerous consequences to national solvency which that holding threatened, and partially circumvented the threat, either by taking refuge in redefinitions of ``direct tax'' or, and more especially, by emphasizing, virtually to the exclusion of the former, the history of excise taxation. Thus, in a series of cases, notably Nicol v. Ames.
- 3 years ago
None. Congress consistently had the potential to levy a tax measured with the aid of earnings, which the SCOTUS suggested in its Brushaber determination. The sixteenth substitute purely bumped off the source of the earnings as being the determining element as to the constitutional type of tax. The earnings tax itself develop into not governed unconstitutional in 1895. a particular earnings tax regulation develop into governed unconstitutional using fact part of it develop into seen a capitation tax, and that part of the regulation wasn't severable from something of it. Java - wasn't "close sufficient" to something. A minor part of the regulation dealing entirely with apartment property develop into the sticking factor, and the courtroom had no concern with something of the regulation or the government's capacity to evaluate this type of tax. As Congress enacted a company earnings tax 4 years earlier than the sixteenth substitute being ratified, how does that jive including your fake fact approximately "underlying theory"? Your spin isn't consistent with the info right here. the theory develop into for sure suggested in Brushaber, which actually, did not overturn the Pollock determination you confer with.