Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: A case I can't find

Expand Messages
  • Patrick M
    This is WHY I highly suggest that people VERIFY things for themselves. The FIRST case that was ALLEGEDLY cited in Lawrence v. Wardell, 273 F. 405, 408 (9th
    Message 1 of 2 , Jun 11, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      This is WHY I highly suggest that people VERIFY things for themselves.

      The FIRST case that was ALLEGEDLY cited in Lawrence v. Wardell, 273 F. 405,
      408 (9th Cir. 1921) was BINNS v. U S, 194 U.S. 486 (1904) & concerned
      EXCISE TAXES.

      “We shall assume that the purpose of the license fees required by 460 is the
      collection of revenue, and that the license fees are excises within the
      constitutional sense of the term. Nevertheless, we are of opinion that they
      are to be regarded as local taxes, imposed for the purpose of raising funds
      to support the administration of local government in Alaska.

      It must be remembered that Congress, in the government of the territories as
      well as of the District of Columbia, has plenary power, save as controlled
      by the provisions of the Constitution;…” BINNS v. U S, 194 U.S. 486 (1904)

      http://laws.findlaw.com/us/194/486.html

      And the SECOND case was DOWNES v. BIDWELL, 182 U.S. 244 (1901) & dealt with
      DUTIES.



      “This was an action begun in the circuit court by Downes, doing business
      under the firm name of S. B. Downes & Co., against the collector of the port
      of New York, to recover back duties to the amount of $659.35 exacted and
      paid under protest upon certain oranges consigned to the plaintiff at New
      York, and brought thither from the port of San Juan in the island of Porto
      Rico during the month of November, 1900, after the passage of the act
      temporarily providing a civil government and revenues for the island of
      Porto Rico, known as the Foraker act.” DOWNES v. BIDWELL, 182 U.S. 244
      (1901)

      http://laws.findlaw.com/us/182/244.html



      Both of WHICH are INDIRECT TAXES, AREN’T they?

      "The subject-matter of taxation open to the power of the Congress is as
      comprehensive as that open to the power of the states, though the method of
      apportionment may at times be different. 'The Congress shall have Power to
      lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises.' Article 1, 8. If the
      tax is a direct one, it shall be apportioned according to the census or
      enumeration. If it is a duty, impost, or excise, it shall be uniform
      throughout the United States. Together, these classes include every form of
      tax appropriate to sovereignty. Cf. Burnet v. Brooks, 288
      <http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=288&invol=378
      #403> U.S. 378, 403 , 405 S., 53 S.Ct. 457, 464, 465, 86 A.L.R. 747;
      Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240
      <http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=240&invol=1#1
      2> U.S. 1, 12 , 36 S.Ct. 236, L.R.A.1917D, 414, Ann.Cas.1917B, 713. Whether
      the tax is to be [301 U.S. 548, 582] classified as an 'excise' is in truth
      not of critical importance. If not that, it is an 'impost' (Pollock v.
      Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 158
      <http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=158&invol=601
      #622> U.S. 601, 622 , 625 S., 15 S.Ct. 912; Pacific Insurance Co. v. Soule,
      7 Wall. 433, 445), or a 'duty' (Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 8 Wall. 533, 546, 547;
      Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157
      <http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=157&invol=429
      #570> U.S. 429, 570 , 15 S.Ct. 673; Knowlton v. Moore, 178
      <http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=178&invol=41#
      46> U.S. 41, 46 , 20 S.Ct. 747). A capitation or other 'direct' tax it
      certainly is not. 'Although there have been, from time to time, intimations
      that there might be some tax which was not a direct tax, nor included under
      the words 'duties, imposts, and excises,' such a tax, for more than 100
      years of national existence, has as yet remained undiscovered,
      notwithstanding the stress of particular circumstances has invited thorough
      investigation into sources of revenue.' Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust
      Co., 157
      <http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=157&invol=429
      #557> U.S. 429, 557 , 15 S.Ct. 673, 680. There is no departure from that
      thought in later cases, but rather a new emphasis of it. Thus, in Thomas v.
      United States, 192
      <http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=192&invol=363
      #370> U.S. 363, 370 , 24 S.Ct. 305, 306, it was said of the words 'duties,
      imposts, and excises' that 'they were used comprehensively to cover customs
      and excise duties imposed on importation, consumption, manufacture, and sale
      of certain commodities, privileges, particular business transactions,
      vocations, occupations, and the like.'" CHAS. C. STEWARD MACH. CO. v.
      DAVIS, 301 U.S. 548 (1937)

      http://laws.findlaw.com/us/301/548.html

      So HOW do you “believe” that the case you cited SUPPORTS you & Timothy’s
      contention that the “income tax” is a DIRECT TAX since BOTH of the
      underlying cases DEALT with INDIRECT TAXES?



      Patrick in California
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.