Springer v. United States

Last updated
Springer v. United States
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued April 8–9, 1880
Decided January 24, 1881
Full case nameWilliam M. Springer v. United States
Citations102 U.S. 586 ( more )
26 L. Ed. 253; 1880 U.S. LEXIS 2066
Holding
The federal income tax imposed under the Revenue Act of 1864 was constitutional.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Morrison Waite
Associate Justices
Nathan Clifford  · Samuel F. Miller
Stephen J. Field  · Joseph P. Bradley
Ward Hunt  · John M. Harlan
William B. Woods
Case opinion
MajoritySwayne, joined by unanimous

Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 (1881), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court upheld the federal income tax imposed under the Revenue Act of 1864. [1]

Contents

Background

William M. Springer had filed a federal income tax return for the tax year 1865 showing $50,798 in income and $4,799 in income tax, but he refused to pay the tax. His income was from two sources: income in his profession as an attorney at law and interest income on United States bonds. [2]

After Springer's failure to pay the tax, the federal tax collector advertised Springer's properties for sale to satisfy the tax liability. In 1867 and 1874, the tax collector sold two pieces of real estate owned by Springer in Springfield, Illinois, one of which was Springer's residence, apparently without physically seizing the properties or ejecting Springer from the properties. The properties were deeded by the tax collector to the federal government. One of the deeds recited the statutory authority for the sale as being an Act of Congress of "July 1, 1862" as amended by an Act of "March 30, 1864."

In 1874, the government filed a lawsuit of ejectment against Springer with respect to the previously-sold properties. In his ejectment action, Springer challenged the constitutionality of the 1864 Act.

Issues raised

Springer's challenge was based on the contention that the income tax imposed by the statute was a direct tax that was not apportioned among the states according to the population of each state, as is required under Article I of the Constitution. To support his contention that the tax was direct, Springer cited the definitions of direct taxes by John Stuart Mill, [3] Adam Smith, [4] and others.

Springer made various other arguments, one of which was that although there was an Act of Congress bearing the date "July 1, 1862" although no such Act had been amended on "March 30, 1864," the amendment date cited in one of the deeds. Springer indicated that the statute in question may have been the Act dated June 30, 1864, as amended by an Act dated March 3, 1865, and argued that if it was the case, the 1864 Act did not authorize the sale of the real estate by the federal tax collector. [5]

Decision

In an opinion written by Justice Swayne, the Supreme Court agreed with Springer that the recital of the Act of Congress in the deed was incorrect and that the Act of Congress dated "July 1, 1862" had not been amended on March 30, 1864. The Court stated that the statute in question was actually the Act of June 30, 1864, as amended by the Act of March 3, 1865. [6] The Court rejected Springer's argument that the Revenue Act of 1864 did not authorize the sale by the tax collector. [6]

The Court then upheld the unapportioned income tax imposed under the 1864 Act and rejected Springer's argument that the income tax was a direct tax within the meaning of Article I of the Constitution.

Rationale

The Court set forth a lengthy examination of the history leading to the inclusion of the apportionment requirement in the Constitution:

It appears that on the 11th of July, in that year, there was a debate of some warmth involving the topic of slavery. On the day following, Gouverneur Morris, of New York, submitted a proposition 'that taxation shall be in proportion to representation.' It is further recorded in this day's proceedings, that Mr. Morris having so varied his motion by inserting the word 'direct,' it passed nem. con., as follows: 'Provided always that direct taxes ought to be proportioned to representation.' 2 Madison Papers, by Gilpin, pp. 1079-1081. On the 24th of the same month, Mr. Morris said that 'he hoped the committee would strike out the whole clause.... He had only meant it as a bridge to assist us over a gulf; having passed the gulf, the bridge may be removed. He thought the principle laid down with so much strictness liable to strong objections.' Id. 1197. The gulf was the share of representation claimed by the Southern States on account of their slave population. But the bridge remained. The builder could not remove it, much as he desired to do so. All parties seem thereafter to have avoided the subject. With one or two immaterial exceptions, not necessary to be noted, it does not appear that it was again adverted to in any way. It was silently incorporated into the draft of the Constitution as that instrument was finally adopted. [7]

After further examining the contemporaneous writings of James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, the Court quoted Hamilton as asserting that direct taxes should be held to be only "capitation or poll taxes, and taxes on lands and buildings, and general assessments, whether on the whole property of individuals or on their whole real or personal estate. All else must, of necessity, be considered as indirect taxes." [8] Comparing Hamilton's understanding of the clause to the facts of the case, the Court stated:

The tax here in question falls within neither of these categories. It is not a tax on the "whole... personal estate" of the individual, but only on his income, gains, and profits during a year, which may have been but a small part of his personal estate, and in most cases would have been so. This classification lends no support to the argument of the plaintiff in error. [9]

The Court concluded that "whenever the government has imposed a tax which it recognized as a direct tax, it has never been applied to any objects but real estate and slaves." [9] It ultimately held "that direct taxes, within the meaning of the Constitution, are only capitation taxes, as expressed in that instrument, and taxes on real estate; and that the tax of which the plaintiff in error complains is within the category of an excise or duty." [10]

Aftermath

The holding in Springer was modified in part by the Court in the 1895 case of Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. [11] on which the Court ruled that a tax on income from property in the form of interest, dividends, or rent should be treated as a tax on the property itself and therefore as a direct tax required to be apportioned. The Sixteenth Amendment overruled the Pollock and has made it clear that there is no requirement for apportionment of income taxes. [12] In Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co. , [13] the Supreme Court reviewed Pollock, the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, and the Sixteenth Amendment and concluded that Congress had always had the unfettered power to tax income, as set forth in Springer.

Related Research Articles

Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution 1913 amendment regulating the collection of federal income tax

The Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution allows Congress to levy an income tax without apportioning it among the states on the basis of population. It was passed by Congress in 1909 in response to the 1895 Supreme Court case of Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. The Sixteenth Amendment was ratified by the requisite number of states on February 3, 1913, and effectively overruled the Supreme Court's ruling in Pollock.

Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429 (1895), affirmed on rehearing, 158 U.S. 601 (1895), was a landmark case of the Supreme Court of the United States. In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court struck down the income tax imposed by the Wilson–Gorman Tariff Act for being an unapportioned direct tax. The decision was superseded in 1913 by the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which allows Congress to levy income taxes without apportioning them among the states.

Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the validity of a tax statute called the Revenue Act of 1913, also known as the Tariff Act, Ch. 16, 38 Stat. 166, enacted pursuant to Article I, section 8, clause 1 of, and the Sixteenth Amendment to, the United States Constitution, allowing a federal income tax. The Sixteenth Amendment had been ratified earlier in 1913. The Revenue Act of 1913 imposed income taxes that were not apportioned among the states according to each state's population.

Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920), was a tax case before the United States Supreme Court that is notable for the following holdings:

Though the actual definitions vary between jurisdictions, in general, a direct tax is a tax imposed upon a person or property as distinct from a tax imposed upon a transaction, which is described as an indirect tax. The term may be used in economic and political analyses, but does not itself have any legal implications. However, in the United States, the term has special constitutional significance because of a provision in the U.S. Constitution that any direct taxes imposed by the national government be apportioned among the states on the basis of population. In the European Union direct taxation remains the sole responsibility of member states.

Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171 (1796), is an early United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a yearly tax on carriages did not violate the Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 and Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 requirements for the apportioning of direct taxes. The Court concluded that the carriage tax was not a direct tax, which would require apportionment among the states. The Court noted that a tax on land was an example of a direct tax that was contemplated by the Constitution.

The Taxing and Spending Clause, Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution, grants the federal government of the United States its power of taxation. While authorizing Congress to levy taxes, this clause permits the levying of taxes for two purposes only: to pay the debts of the United States, and to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. Taken together, these purposes have traditionally been held to imply and to constitute the federal government's taxing and spending power.

<i>America: Freedom to Fascism</i>

America: Freedom to Fascism is a 2006 film by filmmaker and activist Aaron Russo, covering a variety of subjects that Russo contends are detrimental to Americans. Topics include the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the income tax, Federal Reserve System, national ID cards, human-implanted RFID tags, Diebold electronic voting machines, globalization, Big Brother, taser weapons abuse, and the use of terrorism by the government as a means to diminish the citizens' rights.

Reconstruction Amendments Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth amendments to the United States Constitution

The Reconstruction Amendments are the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth amendments to the United States Constitution, adopted between 1865 and 1870. The Reconstruction amendments were a part of implementing the Reconstruction of the American South after the war.

South Carolina v. Baker, 485 U.S. 505 (1988), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that section 310(b)(1) of the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA) does not violate the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The history of taxation in the USA begins with the colonial protest against British taxation policy in the 1760s, leading to the American Revolution. The independent nation collected taxes on imports ("tariffs"), whiskey, and on glass windows. States and localities collected poll taxes on voters and property taxes on land and commercial buildings. In addition, there were the state and federal excise taxes. State and federal inheritance taxes began after 1900, while the states began collecting sales taxes in the 1930s. The United States imposed income taxes briefly during the Civil War and the 1890s. In 1913, the 16th Amendment was ratified, permanently legalizing an income tax.

Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 (1911), was a United States Supreme Court case in which a taxpayer challenged the validity of a federal income tax on corporations. The privilege of incorporation is a state function, and the challengers argued that only the states should tax corporations. The Court ruled that the privilege of operating in corporate form is valuable and justifies imposition of a federal income tax:

Tax protester Sixteenth Amendment arguments are assertions that the imposition of the U.S. federal income tax is illegal because the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads "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", was never properly ratified, or that the amendment provides no power to tax income. Proper ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment is disputed by tax protesters who argue that the quoted text of the Amendment differed from the text proposed by Congress, or that Ohio was not a State during ratification. Sixteenth Amendment ratification arguments have been rejected in every court case where they have been raised and have been identified as legally frivolous.

Tax protesters in the United States advance a number of constitutional arguments asserting that the imposition, assessment and collection of the federal income tax violates the United States Constitution. These kinds of arguments, though related to, are distinguished from statutory and administrative arguments, which presuppose the constitutionality of the income tax, as well as from general conspiracy arguments, which are based upon the proposition that the three branches of the federal government are involved together in a deliberate, on-going campaign of deception for the purpose of defrauding individuals or entities of their wealth or profits. Although constitutional challenges to U.S. tax laws are frequently directed towards the validity and effect of the Sixteenth Amendment, assertions that the income tax violates various other provisions of the Constitution have been made as well.

A tax protester is someone who refuses to pay a tax claiming that the tax laws are unconstitutional or otherwise invalid. Tax protesters are different from tax resisters, who refuse to pay taxes as a protest against a government or its policies, or a moral opposition to taxation in general, not out of a belief that the tax law itself is invalid. The United States has a large and organized culture of people who espouse such theories. Tax protesters also exist in other countries.

Tax protester arguments are arguments made by people, primarily in the United States, who contend that tax laws are unconstitutional or otherwise invalid.

Taxation of income in the United States has been practised since colonial times. Some southern states imposed their own taxes on income from property, both before and after Independence. The Constitution empowered the federal government to raise taxes at a uniform rate throughout the nation, and required that "direct taxes" be imposed only in proportion to the Census population of each state. Federal income tax was first introduced under the Revenue Act of 1861 to help pay for the Civil War. It was renewed in later years and reformed in 1894 in the form of the Wilson-Gorman tariff.

Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916), is a United States Supreme Court case.

Collector v. Day, 78 U.S. 113 (1871), was a United States Supreme Court case that questioned the United States Federal government's ability to impose a tax upon the "salary of a judicial officer of the State." Even though this particular case favors state employees' rights, it was overruled in 1939 by Graves v. New York, where the Supreme Court ruled that the income tax imposed by the State of New York on an employee of the Federal Home Owners Load Corporation was constitutional, since there was no requirement of immunity contained in the Constitution or in any act of Congress. It is still important to Constitutional law because Judge Nelson's opinion gives us a clear statement of the doctrine of dual federalism.

War Revenue Act of 1898

The War Revenue Act of 1898 was legislation signed into law in the United States on June 13, 1898, which created a wide range of taxes to raise revenue for the American prosecution of the Spanish–American War. The legislation established the predecessor to the estate tax, and twice the Supreme Court of the United States issued rulings about the law.

References

  1. ↑ Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 (1881). Some prints of the case show the date as 1880, the year of the session, rather than 1881, the year of the decision. The Court's decision was rendered on January 24, 1881. See Dates of Supreme Court Decisions and Arguments; United States Reports Volumes 2 - 107 (1791-1882), p. 153, at .
  2. ↑ Springer's employment and the source of his income were not mentioned by the Court in its opinion in the Springer case, but they were mentioned by the Court in the 1895 case of Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. , 157 U.S. 429, 579-580, affirmed on rehearing, 158 U.S. 601 (1895).
  3. ↑ Mill, John Stuart (1848). "Of Direct Taxes". Principles of Political Economy. 5.
  4. ↑ Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations
  5. ↑ Springer, 102 U.S. at 591.
  6. 1 2 Springer, 102 U.S. at 593.
  7. ↑ Springer, 102 U.S. at 596.
  8. ↑ Springer, 102 U.S. at 598.
  9. 1 2 Springer, 102 U.S. at 599.
  10. ↑ Springer, 102 U.S. at 602.
  11. ↑ Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. ,157 U.S. 429, affirmed on rehearing, 158 U.S. 601 (1895)
  12. ↑ See generally Bittker, Boris I. (1987). "Constitutional Limits on the Taxing Power of the Federal Government". The Tax Lawyer. 41 (1): 3. (Pollock case "was in effect reversed by the sixteenth amendment").
  13. ↑ Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co. , 271 U.S. 170 (1926).

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.