Page images
PDF
EPUB

References.

U. S. Constitution Annotated, 1923-Government Print-' ing Office

Federal Statutes Annotated

United States Compiled Statutes

Cooley on Taxation

Willoughby on the Constitution

Federal Tax Services

(a) Commerce Clearing House
(b) Prentice-Hall Company

(c) Corporation Trust Company Treasury Decisions

Bulletins

Regulations

Federal Taxes-Black

Federal Taxes-Holmes

Income Tax Procedure-Montgomery

In giving this course no preference is indicated as to reference books to be used. Sufficient information can be secured from a number of the various references listed. A careful explanation is to be made of the different Government publications, and students should secure as many as possible of these for reference and current reading.

The course is briefly outlined under the following subject heads:

(1) Constitutional law governing federal taxing powers. (2) History of the Federal Revenue System.

(3) Analysis of Revenue Acts enacted subsequent and pursuant to the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The outline will follow in the order named above, the general subject heads, the purpose of the outline being to convey an idea of the scope of the course, and to lay out for the student a plan of research.

I.

Constitutional Law Governing Federal Taxing Powers.

In connection with the study of this subject it is suggested that the student consult the following:

(a) Willoughby on the Constitution

(b) Cooley on Taxation

(c) Annotated Federal Statutes

(d) U. S. Constitution, Annotated 1923-Government Printing Office

1. Taxes-Nature and Kind:

(a) Definition:

Cooley on Taxation

Loan Assn. vs. Topeka, 20 Wall. 664
Brown vs. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419
Gibbons vs. Ogden, 9 Wheat 201

(b) Taxation an incident of sovereignty:
McCullough vs. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316

(c) Classification of taxes:

1. Direct taxes; levied upon property, persons, business or income of those who pay.

2. Indirect taxes; levied upon commodities before they reach the consumers and paid by those on whom they ultimately fall, who pay not as taxes but as part of market price of commodity.

Hylton vs. U. S., 3 Dall. 171

Springer vs. U. S., 102 U. S. 586

Farmers Loan & Trust Co. vs. Pollock, 157

U. S. 429, 158 U. S. 601

Knowlton vs. Moore, 178 U. S. 41

Patton vs. Brady, 184 U. S. 608

Brushaber vs. U. P. R. Co., 240 U. S. 1

Veazie Bank vs. Fenno, 8 Wall. 533

2. Nature of Taxing Power Legislative:

(a) U. S. Constitution, Act I, Sec. 8, Cl. 1

McCullough vs. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316
Loan Assn. vs. Topeka, 20 Wall. 663
Osborn vs. U. S. Bank, 9 Wheat. 738
Veazie Bank vs. Fenno, 8 Wall. 533
Merriwether vs. Garrett, 102 U. S. 472

(b) Federal Regulations under Guise of Tax:
Veazie Bank vs. Fenno, 8 Wall. 533
Head Money Cases, 112 U. S. 580
McCray vs. U. S., 195 U. S. 27
Knowlton vs. Moore, 178 U. S. 41

Hill vs. Wallace, 259 U. S. 44

Brown vs. Thorne, 260 U. S.

Lippe vs. Lederer, 259 U. S.

Regal Drug Co. vs. Wardell, 260 U. S. 386
Child Labor Cases

Bailey vs. Drexel Furn. Co., 259 U. S. 20

(c) Taxation of Governmental Agencies:
Ward vs. Maryland, 12 Wall. 427
McCullough vs. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316
License Cases, 5 Howard 504

Osborn vs. Bank, 9 Wheat. 738

Smith vs. Kansas City Title Co., 255 U. S. 180
Collector vs. Day, 11 Wall. 113

(d) Due Process of Law as Related to Taxation:
McCray vs. U. S., 195 U. S. 61

Davidson vs. New Orleans, 96 U. S. 97

(e) Taxation Must Be for Public Purpose:
Loan Assn. vs. Topeka, 20 Wall. 655

3. Limitation of Taxing Power:

(One exception and two qualifications).

(a) Export Duties:

U. S. Constitution, Act I, Sec. 9, Cl. 5
License Tax Cases, 5 Wall. 471

Hylton vs. U. S. 3 Dall. 171
Fairbank vs. U. S., 181 U. S. 283

N. Y., etc., vs. Hvoslef, 237 U. S. 1

Peck vs. Lowe, 247 U. S. 165

National Paper & Type Co. vs. Bowers, 266
U. S. 373

(b) Direct Taxes Apportioned:

U. S. Constitution, Act I, Sec. 9, Cl. 4

Farmers Loan & Trust vs. Pollock, 157 U. S.

425, 158 U. S. 601

Hylton vs. U. S., 3 Dall. 171

Veazie Bank vs. Fenno, 8 Wall. 547

Springer vs. U. S., 102 U. S. 602

License Tax Cases, 5 Wall. 471
Patton vs. Brady, 184 U. S. 608

(c) Indirect Taxes Uniform:

U. S. Constitution, Act I, Sec. 8, Cl. 1
Head Money Cases, 112 U. S. 580
Downs vs. Bidwell, 182 U. S. 244
Flint vs. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U. S. 107
Stanton vs. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U. S. 103
Brushaber vs. U. P. R. Co., 240 U. S. 1
U. S. vs. Singer, 15 Wall. 111

LaBelle Iron Works vs. U. S., 256 U. S. 392

4. Sixteenth Amendment to United States Constitution: (Income Tax Amendment-Passed July 9, 1909-Ratified by proclamation of Secretary of State February 25, 1913.)

The effect of this amendment is considered in connection with the cases under "Definiton of Income." However, the followng leading case is considered under the heading of the amendment-being the leading case on the constitutionality of the first income Tax Act passed under the amendment.

Brushaber vs. U. P. R. Co., 240 U. S. 1

II.

History of Federal Revenue System.

It is the purpose of this course to sketch briefly the history of the earlier revenue acts to give the student the historical background of the present revenue system. It will not be possible, however, to make a detail study of the Acts prior to the Revenue Act of 1913. Certain leading cases under the earlier Acts will be studied in connection with the history of these Acts.

(a) Civil War Income Tax Acts.

Springer vs. U. S., 102 U. S. 602
Gray vs. Darlington, 15 Wall. 63

(b) Act of August, 28, 1894.

Farmers Loan & Trust Co. vs. Pollock, 158 U. S. 601

(c) Act of June 13, 1898-Spanish War Revenue Act. (d) Act of August 5, 1909–Payne-Aldrich Bill (or Corporation Excise Tax Act.

This Act provided an excise tax of 1 per cent with respect to the carrying on or doing business by corporations, joint stock companies and associations-the tax being measured by 1 per cent of the net income of the taxpayer.

The decided cases under this Act bearing on the question of what constitutes income are important in connection with the consideration of what constitutes income under the later Acts. The cases under this Act bearing on what constitutes carrying on or doing business are authority on the same question under the present Capital Stock Tax Act. The following leading cases will be considered under this Act:

Doyle vs. Mitchell Bros., 247 U. S. 179

McCoach vs. Minehill R. R. Co., 228 U. S. 295
Zonne vs. Mpls. Syndicate, 220 U. S. 187

Emery Bird Thayer Realty Co. vs. U. S., 237
U. S. 28

« PreviousContinue »