Part 1: The constitutional authorisation for the US income tax
The 16th amendment gives the authority for an income tax. Where is the authority for the Gift/Estate tax? "U.S. Constitution 16th Amendment Gave Congress Authority To Enact An Income Tax – View First 1040 Tax Form In 1913" https://t.co/wHQatd7IPF via @taxconnections
— John Richardson – lawyer for "U.S. persons" abroad (@ExpatriationLaw) October 18, 2018
As explained in a recent post at Tax Connections:
Written by TaxConnections Admin | Posted in TaxConnections
IRS- First Tax Return Form In 1913
Origin Of Internal Revenue Service
The roots of IRS go back to the Civil War when President Lincoln and Congress, in 1862, created the position of commissioner of Internal Revenue and enacted an income tax to pay war expenses. The income tax was repealed 10 years later. Congress revived the income tax in 1894, but the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional the following year.
16th Amendment
In 1913, Wyoming ratified the 16th Amendment, providing the three-quarter majority of states necessary to amend the Constitution. The 16th Amendment gave Congress the authority to enact an income tax. That same year, the first Form 1040 appeared after Congress levied a 1 percent tax on net personal incomes above $3,000 with a 6 percent surtax on incomes of more than $500,000.
In 1918, during World War I, the top rate of the income tax rose to 77 percent to help finance the war effort. It dropped sharply in the post-war years, down to 24 percent in 1929, and rose again during the Depression. During World War II, Congress introduced payroll withholding and quarterly tax payments.
(PDF 126KB, 4 pages, including instructions)
A New Name
In the 50s, the agency was reorganized to replace a patronage system with career, professional employees. The Bureau of Internal Revenue name was changed to the Internal Revenue Service. Only the IRS commissioner and chief counsel are selected by the president and confirmed by the Senate.
Today’s IRS Organization
The IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 prompted the most comprehensive reorganization and modernization of IRS in nearly half a century. The IRS reorganized itself to closely resemble the private sector model of organizing around customers with similar needs.
(Note that even in 1913, the most prominent part of the 1040 was the Penalty Provision.)
Part 2: Taxation must be constitutional. Is the transition tax an income tax?
The Mandatory Repatriation Tax Is Unconstitutional via SSRN https://t.co/VGBYfdUNXU pic.twitter.com/4B3QezxbBm
— Fix the Tax Treaty! (@FixTheTaxTreaty) October 12, 2018
A new paper by Sean P. McElroy titled: “The Mandatory Repatriation Tax Is Unconstitutional” suggests that:
Abstract
In late 2017, Congress passed the first major tax reform in over three decades. This Essay considers the constitutional concerns raised by Section 965 (the “Mandatory Repatriation Tax”), a central provision of the new tax law that imposes a one-time tax on U.S.-based multinationals’ accumulated foreign earnings.First, this Essay argues that Congress lacks the power to directly tax wealth without apportionment among the states. Congress’s power to tax is expressly granted, and constrained, by the Constitution. While the passage of the Sixteenth Amendment mooted many constitutional questions by expressly allowing Congress to tax income from whatever source derived, this Essay argues the Mandatory Repatriation Tax is a wealth tax, rather than an income tax, and is therefore unconstitutional.
Second, even if the Mandatory Repatriation Tax is found to be an income tax (or, alternatively, an excise tax), the tax is nevertheless unconstitutionally retroactive. While the Supreme Court has generally upheld retroactive taxes at both the state and federal level over the past few decades, the unprecedented retroactivity of the Mandatory Repatriation Tax — and its potential for taxing earnings nearly three decades after the fact — raises unprecedented Fifth Amendment due process concerns.
Here is a copy of the paper …
The point is that the transition tax is not a tax on income. It is a tax on “fake income”. It is “fake income” on two levels:
First, by definition it is not based on income. It is based on a pool of capital that was not subject to taxation when it was earned.
Second, Sec. 965 deems it to be income precisely because it not actual income which is based on any realisation event.
Is this the simplest argument for why the Section 965 transition tax may be unconstitutional?
John Richardson Follow me on Twitter @Expatriationlaw