- 5 -
tested. The early cases considered the 16th Amendment, which
authorized Congress to impose a tax on income without
apportionment among the States. The Supreme Court referred to
the income tax as an indirect tax in “the class of excises,
duties, and imposts”. Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R., 240 U.S. 1,
15 (1916). For example, petitioners cite the following cases:
Cook v. Tait, 286 F. 409, 412 (D. Md. 1923), affd. 265 U.S. 47
(1924); Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R., supra; Stanton v. Baltic
Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916); White Packing Co. v. Robertson,
89 F.2d 775, 779 (4th Cir. 1937).
From those cases, petitioners postulate that the “income
tax” is an “excise tax”, and that petitioners can show that their
activities (receipts) are not subject to the imposition of the
U.S. excise tax. Petitioners have presented several other
unfounded arguments (legal and procedural) and peppered the Court
with a large volume of material in an attempt to be persuasive.
In sum and substance, petitioners have persuaded this Court only
that they are highly motivated in their attempt to avoid being
subjected to a Federal tax on their income.
Wherefore, petitioners’ motion for summary judgment will be
denied.
An appropriate order
will be issued.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5
Last modified: May 25, 2011