Talk:Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire 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. |
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the assessment scale. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taxation, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve tax-related articles to a feature-quality standard. |
| Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload. | |
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as low-priority on the Project's priority scale. |
 |
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's comments page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses. |
[edit] Case frequently quoted
A section on quotes from this case could be added.
Quotes from the opinion of this case are found being used in several other aspects of income tax issues.
Notably: "A statute is so vague as to violate the due process clause .... & ...holding of the Pollock court related to income from capital investments, it is submitted the 16th Amendment is irrelevant to an issue of wages/salaries. Agreement is found in Bower v Kerbaugh-Empire, 271 US 170, 174 (1926) and Eisner v Macomber, 252 US 189, 206 (1920). among others 16:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.177.80.36 (talk • contribs)
Dear user at IP 76.177.80.36: I'm not sure what you are driving at here. These quotations are not found in the text of the case of Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire. I'll check Eisner v. Macomber and get back to you. Yours, Famspear (talk) 18:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Dear user at IP 76.177.80.36: OK, the quotations are not from Eisner v. Macomber either. The quotations have been removed from the article. Famspear (talk) 19:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
