Talk:Direct tax
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-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. |
If a company incporated in USA, it pays the commission to a person who is not a US resident. 1. Whether the person needs to pay US individual income tax or not ?? 2. Whether the commission can be deducted as expenses in order to calculate the tax profit for corporation income tax ??
[edit] Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
I reverted edit by BobHurt on 12 May 2006. The effect of the Sixteenth Amendment has been covered copiously in the article on that topic and in the article on Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad. Yours, Famspear 17:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
The section defining direct tax in the constitutional sense could use some clarification. "by reason of its ownership" is not clear.Loophole64 09:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Guys i am not sure what was reverted here, but this line of reasoning is fatally flawed.
someone is reading this from another source.
The brushaber case CLEARLY shows that the 16th made NO taxation changes for the average person.
From this in substance it indisputably arises, first, that all the contentions which we have previously noticed concerning the assumed limitations to be implied from the language of the Amendment as to the nature and character of the income taxes which it authorizes find no support in the text and are in irreconcilable conflict with the very purpose which the Amendment was adopted to accomplish ( that is to say making ALL income taxable). Second, that the contention that the Amendment treats a tax on income as a direct tax although it is relieved from apportionment and is necessarily therefore not subject to the rule of uniformity as such rule only applies to taxes which are not direct, thus destroying the two great classifications which have been recognized and enforced from the beginning, is also wholly without foundation since the command of the Amendment that all income taxes shall not be subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the taxed income may be derived
240 US 1
We are of opinion, however, [240 U.S. 1, 11] 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 by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it, as follows:
1.The Amendment authorizes only a particular character of direct tax without apportionment, and therefore if a tax is levied under its assumed authority which does not partake of the characteristics exacted by the Amendment, it is outside of the Amendment, and is void as a direct tax in the general constitutional sense because not apportioned.
2.As the Amendment authorizes a tax only upon incomes 'from whatever source derived,' the exclusion from taxation of some income of designated persons and classes is not authorized, and hence the [[constitutionality of the law must be tested by the general provisions of the Constitution as to taxation]], and thus again the tax is void for want of apportionment.
3.As the right to tax 'incomes from whatever source derived' for which the Amendment provides must be considered as exacting intrinsic uniformity, therefore no tax comes under the authority of the Amendment not conforming to such standard, and hence all the provisions of the assailed statute must once more be tested solely under the general and pre-existing provisions of the Constitution, causing the statute again to be void in the absence of apportionment.
But it clearly results that the proposition and the contentions [240 U.S. 1, 12] 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. Moreover, the tax authorized by the Amendment, being direct, would not come under the rule of uniformity applicable under the Constitution to other than direct taxes, and thus it would come to pass that the result of the Amendment would be to authorize a particular direct tax not subject either to apportionment or to the rule of geographical uniformity, thus giving power to impose a different tax in one state or states than was levied in another state or states.
So exactly how does anyone claim that this case upholds the 16th's power to lay direct tax on the average income or that it gave any NEW powers of taxation to the government ?
has anyone even read the cited cases?
there are many errors on this page. does anyone care to fix them ? I do not mean to sound combative but this is silly. The Supreme courts words are being fed to them here.
It pronounced, “Realizing and receiving income or earnings is not a privilege that can be taxed.” 206 Tenn. at 698. In justifying this conclusion, the Court stated that “[s]ince the right to receive income or earnings is a right belonging to every person, this right cannot be taxed as privilege.” 206 Tenn. at 699
Jack Cole Company v. MacFarland, 206 Tenn. 694, 337 S.W.2d 453 (1960)
There are many lawyers who are misquoting this. but if you look at it closely you will find that it Clearly and Plainly says the 16th amendment made no change to congress's ability to tax us.
I am quite open to anything proving otherwise. 69.245.136.69 05:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Dear user: This is old, old stuff. With all due respect, your statement that the "brushaber case CLEARLY shows that the 16th made NO taxation changes for the average person" is totally incorrect. The case did not even involve personal income tax. Mr. Frank Brushaber was arguing about income taxes on corporations, not individuals. And Mr. Frank Brushaber LOST THE CASE. This has been covered over and over and over in Wikipedia. Please read the materials carefully. By the way, the Jack Cole Company case isn't even a Federal income tax tax. It's not a Federal court case at all.
-
- No lawyers are misquoting the Brushaber case. Many tax protesters, however, take quotes from the case and then argue that the quotes mean something other than what they say. Yours, Famspear 10:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I recommend that Direct and Indirect taxes sections be removed from the Taxation topic column. Since these terms only relate to the US constitution and not used anywhere else in the world. It has no relations to taxation in general. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.97.150.156 (talk) 15:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
