Talk:Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.

[edit] Removed enigmatic language

An anonymous user inserted the following into the article:

It should be noted that since the Brushaber case decided that taxes on incomes are excise taxes, that the rule of apportionment does not apply, but the rule of uniformity does. Enforcement of the federal income tax is therefore illegal when applied outside of federal jurisdiction.

First, the courts have indeed indicated that income taxes as a general rule are in the category of excises (as opposed to direct taxes). Under the Sixteenth Amendment, the rule of apportionment does not apply to income taxes. It is also correct to say that the rule of uniformity does apply to excises and therefore, presumably, to income taxes as a general proposition. All this is pretty much already covered in the articles on Pollock and Brushaber and the Sixteenth Amendment, in one form or another. It's unclear why this repetitive material was inserted.

The statement that "Enforcement of the federal income tax is therefore illegal when applied outside of federal jurisdiction" is both ambiguous and from a legal standpoint a non sequitur. The main thrust of the Pollock and Brushaber cases had little to do with "federal jurisdiction," and neither case including any ruling about enforcement of the federal income tax being "illegal" when applied "outside of federal jurisdiction." Unverifiable, and original research (incorrect at that) -- removed. Yours, Famspear 02:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Phony "quote" from Brushaber

Dear fellow editors: An anonymous user inserted the following:

There are three important cases in more recent times, all pertaining to the 16th Ammendment, which some say was never properly ratified. That point is moot however. In the Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad case, the court said: "The 16th Amendment as correctly interpreted, is limited to indirect taxes and for that reason is constitutional ... "

I have searched the text of the Brushaber decision and I cannot find the "quotation."

The references to Stanton v. Baltic Mining and Eisner v. Macomber that were inserted into the article are simply not on point. I believe that both of these cases are already covered at Tax protester constitutional arguments. The effect of the Pollock holding -- that taxes on income from property were to be required to be apportioned after 1895 -- was negated by the Sixteenth Amendment. Yours, Famspear 18:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)