2006Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons (Case Western Reserve University)Open access

The Taxing Power, the Sixteenth Amendment, and the Meaning of ‘Incomes,’

Erik M. Jensen

Open full text 8 citations

Abstract

This article examines the debates leading to the enactment of the 1894 income tax, which the Supreme Court struck down in 1895, and the Sixteenth Amendment, ratified in 1913, and concludes that an income tax and a tax on consumption were understood to be fundamentally different types of taxes. The author argues that the term “taxes on incomes” in the Sixteenth Amendment should be interpreted with that distinction in mind. The Amendment was intended to make a “tax on incomes,” and only a tax on incomes, possible without the apportionment that would otherwise be required for a direct tax. For a tax that is direct but is not a tax on incomes, however, a category that includes direct-consumption taxes, the apportionment rule remains in effect.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

This article examines the debates leading to the enactment of the 1894 income tax, which the Supreme Court struck down in 1895, and the Sixteenth Amendment, ratified in 1913, and concludes that an income tax and a tax on consumption were understood to be fundamentally different types of taxes. The author argues that the term “taxes on incomes” in the Sixteenth Amendment should be interpreted with that distinction in mind. The Amendment was intended to make a “tax on incomes,” and only a tax on incomes, possible without the apportionment that would otherwise be required for a direct tax. For a tax that is direct but is not a tax on incomes, however, a category that includes direct-consumption taxes, the apportionment rule remains in effect.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 8 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

This article examines the debates leading to the enactment of the 1894 income tax, which the Supreme Court struck down in 1895, and the Sixteenth Amendment, ratified in 1913, and concludes that an income tax and a tax on consumption were understood to be fundamentally different types of taxes. The author argues that the term “taxes on incomes” in the Sixteenth Amendment should be interpreted with that distinction in mind. The Amendment was intended to make a “tax on incomes,” and only a tax on incomes, possible without the apportionment that would otherwise be required for a direct tax. For a tax that is direct but is not a tax on incomes, however, a category that includes direct-consumption taxes, the apportionment rule remains in effect.

Key concepts: Direct tax, Apportionment, Indirect tax, Economics, Value-added tax, Consumption tax, State income tax, Tax reform

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
The Taxing Power, the Sixteenth Amendment, and the Meaning of ‘Incomes,’ — Research Paper | ScholarLens