| |
| |
|
|
Taxes |
|
History Of The Federal Income Tax
The powers of Congress, and the limitations set upon those powers, are set forth in Article I of the United States Constitution. Section 8 specifies both the power to collect, "Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises," and the requirement that, "Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States." One of the major concerns of the Constitutional Convention was to limit the powers of the Federal Government. Among the powers to be limited was the power of taxation. It was thought that head taxes and property taxes (slaves could be taxed as either or both) were likely to be abused, and that they bore no relation to the activities in which the Federal Government had a legitimate interest. The fourth clause of section 9 therefore specifies that, "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken." The courts have generally held that direct taxes are limited to taxes on people (variously called capitation, poll tax or head tax) and property. (Penn Mutual Indemnity Co. v. C.I.R., 227 F.2d 16, 19-20 (3rd Cir. 1960).) All other taxes are commonly referred to as "indirect taxes," because they tax an event, rather than a person or property per se. (Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548, 581-582 (1937).) What seemed to be a straightforward limitation on the power of the legislature based on the subject of the tax proved inexact and unclear when applied to an income tax, which can be arguably viewed either as a direct or an indirect tax. In order to help pay for its war effort in the American Civil War, the United States government issued its first personal income tax, on August 5, 1861 as part of the Revenue Act of 1861 (3% of all incomes over US $800; rescinded in 1872). Other income taxes followed, although a 1895 Supreme Court ruling, Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., held that taxes on capital gains, dividends, interest, rents and the like were unapportioned direct taxes on property, and therefore unconstitutional. The Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution removed the limitations on Congress, paving the way for the income tax to become the government's main source of revenue; 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." A growing number of citizens seeks to challenge the power of the state to collect taxes by finding a way to discount the sixteenth amendment. The italicized paragraphs below are represenative of these attempts: Lower federal courts sometimes refer to "unapportioned direct taxes" and similar catch phrases to describe the power of Congress to tax income. (See U.S. v. Turano, 802 F.2d 10, 12 (1st Cir. 1986). ("The 16th Amendment eliminated the indirect/direct distinction as applied to taxes on income.")) This, however, does not seem to be the stated position of the Supreme Court. Yet, despite popular opinion, the 16th Amendment did not give Congress any new taxing powers. In Treasury Decision 2303, the Secretary of the Treasury directly quoted the Supreme Court (Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. (240 U.S. 103)) in saying that "The provisions of the 16th amendment conferred no new power of taxation," but instead simply prohibited Congress original power to tax incomes "from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation, to which it inherently belonged, and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment." The closest the Supreme Court has come to saying that "from whatever source derived" in the amendment expanded the taxing power of Congress was in Justice Holmes' dissent in Evans v Gore (253 U.S. 245, 267 (1920). (Holmes dissent) (Partially overruled by U.S. v Hatter. 532 U.S. 557 (2001), with respect to the prior reasoning about the compensation clause.)). In that case, the Court was considering the effect the 16th Amendment had on the compensation clause, and specifically whether the compensation of judges was unlawfully reduced by the imposition of the income tax. Justice Holmes opined that under the 16th Amendment, "Congress is given power to collect taxes on incomes from whatever source derived ?[so] it seems to me that the Amendment was intended to put an end to the cause and not merely obviate" the result in Pollock. (Id.) Even in this case, though, the majority affirmed the more restrictive interpretation of the Amendment. (Id. at 262-263. (Majority opinion)) The federal income tax statutes echos the language of the 16th amendment in stating that it reaches "all income from whatever source derived," (26 USC s. 61) including criminal enterprises; criminals who fail to report their income accurately have been successfully prosecuted for tax evasion. Since the language of the amendment is clearly meant to restrict the jurisdiction of the courts, it is not immediately clear why the courts emphasize the words "all income" and ignore the derivation of the entire phrase to interpret this section - except to reach a desired political result. Arguments about the meaning of the current income tax has continued for nearly 100 years. Courts are reluctant to support a literal reading of the tax laws in favor of potential taxpayers, since it can lead to tax avoidance. Professor Soled points out why judicial doctrines are used against tax avoidance strategies in general, "The use of judicial doctrines to curtail tax avoidance is pervasive in the area of income taxation. There are several reasons for this phenomenon: central among them is that courts believe that if the Internal Revenue Code ("Code") were read literally, impermissible tax avoidance would become the norm rather than the exception. No matter how perceptive the legislature, it cannot anticipate all events and circumstances that may unfold, and, due to linguistic limitations, statutes do not always capture the essence of what is intended. Judicial doctrines fill the void left either by the legislature or by the words of the Code. Another reason for the popularity of these doctrines is that courts do not want to appear duped by taxpayers..." (Jay A. Soled, Use of Judicial Doctrines in Resolving Transfer Tax Controversies, 42 B.C. L. Rev 587, 588-589 (2001).) Of course, if the intent of Congress was to actually reach all income then the simplest way to state s. 61 would be "all income ***however realized.***" Instead, s. 61 mentions sources and other sections of the federal tax code actually lists about 20 sources of income that are specifically taxed. (26 USC ss. 861-864.) A common rule of statutory interpretation is the doctrine inclusio unius est exclusio alterius. This doctrine means "[t]he inclusion of one is the exclusion of another?This doctrine decrees that where law expressly describes [a] particular situation to which it shall apply, an irrefutable inference must be drawn that what is omitted or excluded was intended to be omitted or excluded." (Black's Law Dictionary 763 (6th Ed. 1990).) Since particular sources are listed as taxable in the tax law, then it is reasonable to infer that other sources of income are excluded from taxation. This argument is called the "861 source argument" and the courts refuse to analyze the argument despite consistently holding against it, even going so far as to issue restraining orders against people who publish websites about it. (U.S. v. Bell, 238 F.Supp.2d 696, 698 (M.D. Pa. 2003).'' In 1913 the tax rate was 1 percent on taxable net income above $3,000 ($4,000 for married couples), less deductions and exemptions. It rose to a rate of 7 percent on incomes above $500,000. During World War I the top rate rose to 77 percent; following the war, the top rate was scaled down (to a low of 25 percent). During the Great Depression and World War II, the top income tax rate rose again, reaching 91% during the war; this top rate remained in effect until 1964. In 1964 the top rate was decreased to 70% (1964 Revenue Act), and then to 50% in 1981 (Economic Recovery Tax Act or ERTA). The Tax Reform Act of 1986 reduced the top rate to 28%, at the same time raising the bottom rate from 11% to 15% (in fact 15% and 28% became the only two tax brackets). During the 1990s the top rate rose again, standing at 39.6% by the end of the decade. In 2001 the top rate was cut to 35% and the bottom rate was cut to 10% by the EGTRRA, or Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act. In 2003 the JGTRRA, or Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act, was passed, expanding the 10% tax bracket and accelerating some of the changes passed in the 2001 EGTRRA. For more free legal information on Tax Law, please visit Free Legal Information.
MORE RESOURCES:
Taxes - Google News |
|
|
|
RELATED ARTICLES
Furnishing Evidence in E-Tax Compliance Self-assessment relies on taxpayers voluntarily meeting their tax obligations. This concept is recognised in all tax statutes, which sets out taxpayers' primary obligations, and clearly spells out that taxpayers are required to determine the amount of tax payable correctly and to pay it on time. Are You An Innocent Victim of These Popular Myths? Misconceptions, misinterpretations and just plain "untruths" are floating about income taxes. Believing them could be costing thousands of tax dollars!Myth: A Professional Tax Preparer knows all there is to know about taxes so you don't have to know anything them. Surprising Truths About Tax Preparers Choosing the right tax preparer for your business is a decision best not left until April. A former tax preparer and small business mastermind offers insights into the secret world of tax preparers. IRS Reports Tax Gap of $300 Billion The Internal Revenue Service is reporting that the difference between what U.S. Save Money on Taxes - Double Your Income Now With Tax Saving Tips on Deductions Adding Your First Additional Stream of IncomeMost new wealth builders currently have a full-time job. After realizing that means "Just ----Over Broke" they commit to quitting their job and starting their own business. Hurricane Katrina - How To Use Your Business Loss To Get A Refund on 2004 Taxes With the massive losses caused by Katrina, the economy of the Gulf Coast region is in extremely bad shape. Fortunately, there is a quirk in the tax code that can help you generate a large refund from your 2004 taxes. Need a Copy of Your Tax Return Information? Taxpayers have two easy and convenient options for getting copies of their federal tax return information - tax return transcripts and tax account transcripts - by phone or by mail.A tax return transcript shows most line items from the tax return (Form 1040, 1040A or 1040EZ) as it was originally filed, including any accompanying forms and schedules. Tax Tips - Which Tax Form Is Right For Me? IRS Tax forms can be confusing.Am I a 1099 or a W-2. How to Cut Duty Cost and Increase Profit as an Importer Import duties continue to be significant elements in the cost of international trade. Yet many companies and businesses still pay more duties than the law requires - which impacts adversely on landed cost and ultimately on business profitability. Small Business Tax Deductions for Year End 2004 As a small business owner, it's wise to familiarize yourself with some key deductions that may reduce your tax bill for 2004.Employee Benefit Plans - You may deduct contributions to employee benefit plans (such as health insurance plans and retirement plans). Understanding Basic Tax Terms If your like many, you don't always understand what people are talking about when it comes to Taxes. It's important to know the main tax terminology, especially when tax season comes around. Truly Bizarre Taxes: The Tax on Illegal Drugs One can never underestimate the enthusiasm that politicians have for trying to hunt up tax revenues. The creativity of some politicians can lead to bizarre taxes and unfortunate results. Save Money on Taxes - Let Uncle Sam Pay for Your Fun! "Deducting Meals and Entertainment"O.K. The Implications of Income Tax Charge on Estate Planning OverviewIn the Pre-Budget Report of December 2003 the Chancellor Gordon Brown announced proposals to levy an Income Tax charge from 6th April 2005 in those circumstances where the transferor of an asset retains and interest or continues to benefit from that asset. In the instance of real property, the 'benefit' envisaged is the transferor continuing to reside in the property he/she has allegedly given away. Get Uncle Sam To Pay $36,000 For Your Childs Education! Let's assume that you would like to begin saving for your children's education fund. At the end of each year, for the next 8 years, you will contribute $2,000 into a Coverdell Education Savings Account (Education IRA), using your after-tax dollars. Back To School - Educators Deduct School Expenses As teachers and students head back to school following a glorious summer, it's time to remind teachers to organize 2004 school expenses. Under a temporary tax code change, teachers can deduct certain school-related expenses from adjusted gross income. To Tax or Not to Tax - This is the Question To tax or not to tax - this question could have never been asked twenty years ago.Historically, income tax is a novel invention. Taxation of Isle of Man Companies from April 2006 At the present time a company incorporated in the Isle of Man, owned by non-residents and which complies with the other statutory requirements, is not liable to Isle of Man taxation. Whilst locally trading companies pay tax at 18%, a qualifying offshore company pays a flat annual tax of £475 or £1,000. Failure To Pay Employment Taxes - Penalties As an employer, you must pay employment taxes if you have employees. Fail to pay and the IRS will rain all over your parade. Complaince of Tax Return in Electronic Commerce Taxation Emerging Legal issues of Tax compliance of e-business Self-assessment system relies on taxpayers voluntarily meeting their tax obligations by tax payee. This concept is recognised in all tax statutes, which sets out taxpayers' primary obligations to fill tax return on self-assessment, and clearly spells out that taxpayers are required to determine the amount of tax payable correctly and to pay it on time.
|
|||||||||||||||||
