Talk:Revenue Act of 1913

Merger from Underwood Tariff to Revenue Act of 1913
The Underwood Tariff was part of the Revenue Act of 1913. They are similar in scope and neither article is very long. Therefore, I suggest they be merged together under Revenue Act of 1913, with the Tariff becoming a section of it. —Markles 19:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Also, there is an article called Underwood Simmons tariff of 1913 that needs to be merged into this article as well. Yours, Famspear 20:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I made a few minor edits and deleted the cryptic reference to the "disaster" regarding the 1894 tariff. Few people other than tax geeks like me or historians are going to have a clue as to what that was all about (I assume the writer was talking about the Supreme Court decision in a case called Pollock). I will try to re-add the material later, with an explanation. Yours, Famspear 21:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Ratification of Sixteenth Amendment
Dear readers: An editor inserted a statement to the effect that only 36 states had ratified the 16th Amendment by 1913, with an incomplete cite to some sort of Treasury Department fact sheet. I reverted the edit. According to the official publication of the United States Constitution by the United States Government Printing Office at, a total of 42 states had ratified by the middle of March 1913. Yours, Famspear 03:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Temperance
Ratification of the 16th amendment and subsequent enactment of the income tax was a key event on the way to national alcohol prohibition. Prior to the income tax, national prohibition had failed because of the alcohol excise revenue that would have been lost. By creating a new source of revenue, alcohol excises could be sacrificed. This connection also explains why so many southern states (and other dry states) ratified the 16th amendment so early. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffryfisher (talk • contribs) 00:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The 16th Amendment did not create a new class of Direct, Unapportioned taxes. The Brushaber Decision by the Supreme Court states this plainly.: The Court ruled, in assessing whether or not the tested legislation imposed a direct or indirect income tax, that:

“We are of opinion, however, that the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation; that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes. And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear…”  Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 11 (1916)

in further denying the proposition and contention that the 16th Amendment authorizes a direct income tax, the Court very clearly states:

“…it clearly results that the proposition and the contentions under it, if acceded to, would cause one provision of the Constitution to destroy another; that is, they would result in bringing the provisions of the Amendment exempting a direct tax from apportionment into irreconcilable conflict with the general requirement that all direct taxes be apportioned ... This result … would create radical and destructive changes in our constitutional system and multiply confusion.”  Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 12 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.248.209 (talk) 04:07, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The Sixteenth Amendment did, however, authorize the imposition of income taxes on all income from whatever source derived without any requirement of apportionment, regardless of whether or not that tax would be considered a direct tax or not. Famspear (talk) 13:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

This was a net income tax, not an individual income tax, so why is the word "couple" and "single" being addressed
If its a family business, put the business name down. If its a sole proprietor, put the name of the business down. If its a public practice, the name of the practice is put down. If its a corporation, the name of the Corp is put down, same as a partnership, otherwise I think it would in fact violate the Supreme Court law as being a direct tax on an Individual. The rent was usually people using farmland and whatever they were growing they would give to the landowner.s The net income is based on all net income within the states. The only withholding being done AT THE Source was related to stocks that were sold publicly using the same $3000.00 loss that could be claimed today. Whereas the privately owned shares that are not being traded publicly if I am not mistaken, would be collected at the land agents office by the collection officer, using the same $3000 criteria. I'm still not quite how the children became a part of this because when you are talking about net income, you are talking about a single entity. This keeps the government out of family affairs. The tax is "lay" on the land, the levy's against the land, as well as the assessment.12.164.74.34 (talk) 10:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)