Springer v. U.S. (1881)

  1. In the case  Springer vs. U.S. (1881), Springer, an attorney and bondholder, refused to pay income taxes that were filed in the year 1865, one year after the Revenue Act of 1864 was initiated. Because he refused to pay, the federal government sold his property as compensation for his un-payed taxes. He fought against the supreme court expressing that this income tax violated the rules of apportionment. The issue brought to the court asked, “Was the Federal Income Tax upheld by the Revenue act of 1864 constitutional?” The Court held that the taxes on Springer’s income was constitutional, under the Revenue act of 1864. The justices’ reasoning held that income taxes upheld under the Revenue act did not have to meet the requirements of apportionment. The court also concluded “that direct taxes, within the meaning of the Constitution, are only capitation taxes, as expressed in that instrument, and taxes on real estate; and that the tax of which the plaintiff in error complains is within the category of an excise or duty.”
“Springer v. United States.” In . : , 2005-01-01. http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100525435.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *