FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W4360972887> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W4360972887 endingPage "177" @default.
• W4360972887 startingPage "162" @default.
• W4360972887 abstract "The Four Good Dissenters in Pollock CALVIN H. JOHNSON* The overall theme ofthis lecture series is great dissenters. This contribution to the series is on the dissenters in the 1895 case ofPollock v. Farmers' Trust & Loan Co. In Pollock, the Supreme Court decided, by a vote of 5-4, that the 1894 federal income tax was unconstitutional. The four dissenters—Justice Henry Brown of Michigan, Justice John Marshall Harlan of Kentucky, Justice Howell Jackson of Tennessee, and future Chief Justice Edward D. White—would have upheld the tax. Dissenters appeal to “future historians,”1 or, as Justice Jackson said, dissenting in Korematsu , to the “moral judgments of history.”2 As to Pollock, we have become the history that makes the judgments. This small slice of his­ torical judgment concludes that the four dis­ senters in Pollock didjust fine. These four are conservative, sound, good Justices, loyal to set­ tled doctrine, good sense, history and the orig­ inal intent ofthe Constitution. Under the Constitution, direct taxes have to be apportioned among the states by popula­ tion. Originally, the formula was population counting slaves at three-fifths—and, indeed, taxing slaves was the original reason why ap­ portionment came into the Constitution. The dissent and the majority in Pollock disagreed on whether the income tax was a direct tax. The four dissenters in Pollock would have followed existing case law. The Supreme Court had twice before held that an income tax was not a direct tax.3 Under the established doc­ trine going back to the time of the Founders, apportionability was a necessary element of “direct tax.” Ifapportionment was not reason­ able, therefore, the tax was not direct.4 The rationale for the line of cases with the most “cogency and force,” said Joseph Story, was that “no tax could be a direct one, in the sense of the constitution, which was not capable of apportionment according to the rule laid down in the constitution.”5 All four ofthe dissenters said that the century of precedents settled the issue.6 The majority in Pollock decided that the income tax was a direct tax that failed for want of apportionment. The majority believed that the function of allocation by population was to prevent an assault on wealth, so they ap­ plied the allocation requirement aggressively. In April 1895, the majority decided that a tax on land was a direct tax, and then decided that THE FOUR GOOD DISSENTERS IN POLLOCK 163 an income tax on rents from land was so tanta­ mount to a tax on land that it was also direct.I. * * * * * 7 In May, the Court returned to decide, 5^1, to kill the rest ofthe 1894 income tax.8 The Sixteenth Amendment to the Consti­ tution, ratified in 1913, now allows an income tax without apportionment, overriding Pollock on the specific tax before it. The Court it­ self also retreated from Pollock. By the time of the Sixteenth Amendment, the Court had held that all the taxes that came before it were not direct taxes—sometimes quite creatively, but always distinguishing Pollock9 and what it later called Pollock's “mistaken theory.”10 Still, Pollock is not quite dead. It is still used to support a narrow interpretation of the Six­ teenth Amendment.11 It has been overruled on a separate issue, its holding that Congress may not tax interest paid by state and mu­ nicipal borrowers,12 but it has not been ex­ pressly overruled on its aggressive application of the apportionment requirement. There are also people who like Pollock's tax-killing re­ sult, so you never can tell. I. The Perversity of Apportionment Apportionment of tax cries out for an expla­ nation of what it is doing in a good neighbor­ hood like the Constitution. When the percapita tax base is uneven between any two states, ap­ portionment by population is perverse. Take, for example, a carriage tax, the subject of the Court’s 1796 case Hylton v. United States,13 which startedthe line. Carriages require streets and roads, and the Court hypothesized that New York might have ten times more carriages per capita than Virginia.14 To meet apportion­ ment under that assumption, tax rates would have..." @default.
• W4360972887 created "2023-03-30" @default.
• W4360972887 creator A5004593477 @default.
• W4360972887 date "2007-01-01" @default.
• W4360972887 modified "2023-10-17" @default.
• W4360972887 title "The Four Good Dissenters in Pollock" @default.
• W4360972887 doi "https://doi.org/10.1353/sch.2007.0014" @default.
• W4360972887 hasPublicationYear "2007" @default.
• W4360972887 type Work @default.
• W4360972887 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W4360972887 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W4360972887 hasAuthorship W4360972887A5004593477 @default.
• W4360972887 hasConcept C139621336 @default.
• W4360972887 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W4360972887 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W4360972887 hasConcept C2776154427 @default.
• W4360972887 hasConcept C2778272461 @default.
• W4360972887 hasConcept C2778449503 @default.
• W4360972887 hasConcept C2779175135 @default.
• W4360972887 hasConcept C52119013 @default.
• W4360972887 hasConcept C56617239 @default.
• W4360972887 hasConcept C95457728 @default.
• W4360972887 hasConceptScore W4360972887C139621336 @default.
• W4360972887 hasConceptScore W4360972887C17744445 @default.
• W4360972887 hasConceptScore W4360972887C199539241 @default.
• W4360972887 hasConceptScore W4360972887C2776154427 @default.
• W4360972887 hasConceptScore W4360972887C2778272461 @default.
• W4360972887 hasConceptScore W4360972887C2778449503 @default.
• W4360972887 hasConceptScore W4360972887C2779175135 @default.
• W4360972887 hasConceptScore W4360972887C52119013 @default.
• W4360972887 hasConceptScore W4360972887C56617239 @default.
• W4360972887 hasConceptScore W4360972887C95457728 @default.
• W4360972887 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W4360972887 hasLocation W43609728871 @default.
• W4360972887 hasOpenAccess W4360972887 @default.
• W4360972887 hasPrimaryLocation W43609728871 @default.
• W4360972887 hasRelatedWork W1543214997 @default.
• W4360972887 hasRelatedWork W2257606011 @default.
• W4360972887 hasRelatedWork W2517131496 @default.
• W4360972887 hasRelatedWork W2594163300 @default.
• W4360972887 hasRelatedWork W2884197816 @default.
• W4360972887 hasRelatedWork W4212863392 @default.
• W4360972887 hasRelatedWork W4246265428 @default.
• W4360972887 hasRelatedWork W4367315972 @default.
• W4360972887 hasRelatedWork W52598517 @default.
• W4360972887 hasRelatedWork W3112537306 @default.
• W4360972887 hasVolume "32" @default.
• W4360972887 isParatext "false" @default.
• W4360972887 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W4360972887 workType "article" @default.