Posted on 08/29/2006 6:38:28 AM PDT by Uncledave
Last week, a federal appeals court in Washington handed down an important decision relating to the definition of income for tax purposes. What is important about the decision is that it is the first one in decades saying that the Constitution itself limits what the government may tax. If upheld by the Supreme Court, it could significantly alter tax policy and possibly open the door to radical reform.
In the case, a woman named Marrita Murphy was awarded a legal settlement that included compensation for physical injury and emotional distress. The former has always been tax-exempt, just as insurance settlements are. Obviously, it makes no sense to tax as income the payment for a loss that only makes one whole again. One is not being made better off, and therefore there is no income. But under current law, compensation for non-physical injuries are taxed.
Murphy argued that just as compensation for physical injuries only makes one whole after a loss, the same is true of awards for emotional distress, as well. In short, it is not income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution. The appeals court agreed and ruled that her award for emotional distress is not income and therefore not taxable.
Tax experts immediately recognized the far-reaching implications of the Murphy decision for other areas of tax law. Tax protesters have long argued that the 16th Amendment did not grant the federal government the power to tax every single receipt that it deems to be income. Yet in practice, that is what the Internal Revenue Service does.
The problem is that the very concept of income itself has never been defined in the tax law. It is pretty much whatever the IRS says it is. Tax analysts generally use a definition devised by two economists named Robert Haig and Henry Simons, which says that income consists of consumption plus the change in net worth between two points in time.
But the Haig-Simons definition goes far beyond that in the tax law. Most importantly, it includes unrealized capital gains. There is also no place in the Haig-Simons definition for things like 401(k) plans, individual retirement accounts or other retirement savings, nor for lower tax rates on realized capital gains.
Under Haig-Simons, owner-occupied homes would be treated as businesses, with homeowners taxed on the implicit rent they pay to themselves, less depreciation. And if your home's value increased over the course of a year, you should pay tax on that even if you didn't sell your house.
Now, clearly, the IRS is not going to do any of these things, nor would Congress allow it to do so. But because tax analysts implicitly accept the Haig-Simons definition of income, even though it appears nowhere in law, there has been a long-term tendency for the IRS to push the limit of what can be considered taxable income. Now, a federal court has said there is a constitutional limit.
One area where I would like to see the court go further has to do with the question of whether interest constitutes income. To economists, some portion of the interest we receive on our savings is merely compensation for loss -- loss of the immediate enjoyment we would receive if we consumed our income today instead of saving it.
Think of it this way. Would you be satisfied receiving your paycheck a year from now instead of on payday? Of course not. You would be suffering a real loss if you had to wait a year to get paid for your work. But if you were offered, say, 10 percent more in a year, you might say that was OK. Collectively, our willingness to put off consumption today for greater consumption in the future is what determines the pure rate of interest.
But in the view of many great economists, such as John Stuart Mill, the future interest one receives is merely compensation for the loss of immediate satisfaction. Therefore, it is not income, but more like an insurance settlement that simply makes us whole. Now, obviously, market interest rates are more than simply a discount between present and future, as my example implies. A lot represents a return to risk and an adjustment for expected inflation. But in principle, some portion of interest is compensation for loss and therefore not income.
Given the logic of the Murphy decision, it is quite possible that the risk-free, inflation-adjusted rate of interest could also be excluded from taxation on constitutional grounds. Following through that logic consistently would revolutionize taxation and eventually lead to a pure consumption tax, which most economists today favor.
I'm not predicting that the Supreme Court will follow this logic. But it does open an interesting possibility that tax analysts will follow with interest.
be vewy vewy quiet(see Elmer Fudd)....but the present administration is doing a grand old job of TAX--TAX--TAX and SPEND--SPEND--SPEND--SPEND""
Does anyone know where in the constitutional penumbra it says that unelected, unaccountable executive branch bureaucrats can write law? I always thought only legislators can write law.They wrote the law that says "unelected, unaccountable executive branch bureaucrats can write law"
From this page - http://brogdensmuse.menofhonorministry.org/Politics.htm
TAXPAYER'S LAMENT
Tax his cow, Tax his goat;
Tax his pants, Tax his coat;
Tax his crop, Tax his work;
Tax his ties, Tax his shirt;
Tax his chew, Tax his smoke;
Teach him taxing is no joke.
Tax his tractor, Tax his mule;
Tell him, Taxing is the rule.
Tax his oil, Tax his gas;
Tax his notes, Tax his cash;
Tax him good and let him know,
That after taxes, he has no dough.
If he hollers, Tax him more;
Tax him till he's good and sore.
Tax his coffin, Tax his grave,
Tax his sod in which he's laid.
Put these words upon his tomb,
´´Taxes drove him to his doom.´´
After he's gone, we won't relax.
We'll still collect inheritance tax.
Right on!
Taxed 5 times for the same damn money!
Kinda makes you want to throw a bunch of politicians into Boston harbor doesn't it?
We should take a moment to recognize that politics and parties do matter in this particular situation. There is no way this decision of the DC Circuit would have happened under judges appointed by Clinton/Carter. Our president George W. Bush and the majority elected to the U. S. Senate appointed these judges and give us the hope of relief in the nature of real tax reform. Problem likely is, we need one more appointment in the U. S. Supreme Court, in case Anthony Kennedy decides to side with the liberals on this one.
Hopefully, this will spill over and impact State law also. In Kaleefornia, if you win a big settlement, the State can tax up to half of it. Like the article illustrated, so much for being made "whole."
I see, upon checking, that the Chief Judge Douglas Ginsburg was appointed by President Reagan. Judge Rogers was appointed by President Clinton, and Judge Rogers-Brown was appointed by President George W. Bush. Perhaps the vote by Judge Rogers gives hope for the direction Justice Kennedy may take in this case.
bump
...or, preferably, hire them.
Great post. One of the best I have seen on this site in months.
Thanks for that list. I have seen it before but never saved it.
I laugh at those that harp about the Scandinavian countries and other socialist countries of Europe having a high rate of taxation.
The truth if the matter is that it is the taxpayers in the USA that are the highest taxed. The taxes are as you say so diffused and layered that most everyone does not see the tax burden directly but instead they feel it as they live from paycheck to paycheck and struggle to keep up with inflation. It's a shellgame pure and simple.
Bush indeed is at fault here. And I know it a common FR joke to say 'Bush's Fault', but he is responsible for the failure of the Tax Reform Commission. He allowed two former US Senators, his good buddies, to run that Commission in whatever direction they fancied. They spent a whole lot of $$$, had a grand time and delivered a skunk to Congress. And what did Bush do about it? Nada. Won't even talk about it.
The one thing that came out of that Tax Commission boondoggle was that the Fair Tax would have to be levied at a rate of 57% to 85% to keep the government revenue neutral. That showed what Washington beltway maggots think the real rate of taxation is. No matter that Fair Taxers think the rate should be 23%, the fact is that the Beltway class thinks it's as high as 85%.
Now compare 85% with France's socialist 47%. In France you get 30 days paid vacation per year guaranteed, you get 6 months paid at 100% maternity/parental leave, you get free university education if you're good enough, you get free healthcare and have all sorts of job protections. Unemployment in France is mostly among young Arabs, once they are accounted for the unemployment figure is not much different than that of the USA. And France makes wonderful products, as does Norway, Sweden, Finland, Germany, and a host of emerging Eastern European nations. And they refuse through protectionist policies to allow their markets to be flooded with cheap imported goods. So there is no outsourcing! The Eurozone is beginning to kick our *ss! Ireland is booming because they got brave enough to kill their old system of taxation and replace with a new incentivizing one.
Do I advocate for Socialism? Hell No! I'm just pointing out that we are already there and don't know it, and it's an inferior system to what the Euros have.
In my lifetime I would like to see the original tax ideas of Alexander Hamilton put in place and a Consitutional Amendment barring any form of income tax for all time. The Fair Tax would usher in a period of American prosperity unlike anything ever seen. It would show the world once again how this nation can transform itself to greatness. Because right now it's captive to liars and their clients.
Forget the community governments, I spend as much time and money TRYING to comply with government regulations than I actually do earning my living. The burden on human beings to try to comply is huge, and ever expanding.
And compliance is impossible.
The IRS, Americas number one, home grown terrorist organization. Repeal the 16th, and send 'em to Hell, along with the ACLU.
The problem is that the People think the federal government affects them outside the original jurisdiction enumerated in the Constitution.
Outside that jurisdiction, when the federal government exercises its national aspects as an administrative organ, it only has the authority to affect the political entities of the States, NOT the People. The People, in their ignorance, claim to be 'citizens of the United States', when in fact, they are citizens of their respective States.
---
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;
§ 1218 The inhabitants enjoy all their civil, religious, and political rights. They live substantially under the same laws, as at the time of the cession, such changes only having been made, as have been devised, and sought by themselves. They are not indeed citizens of any state, entitled to the privileges of such; but they are citizens of the United States.
Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§§ 1212--22
***
14 CJS section 4 quotes State v. Manuel 20 NC 122:
"... the term `citizen' in the United States, is analogous to the term `subject' in the common law; the change of phrase has resulted from the change in government."
______________________________________________________________________
U.S. v. Anthony 24 Fed. 829 (1873)
"The term resident and citizen of the United States is distinguished from a Citizen of one of the several states, in that the former is a special class of citizen created by Congress."
______________________________________________________________________
Gardina v. Board of Registrars of Jefferson County, 160 Ala. 155; 48 So. 788 (1909)
"There are, then, under our republican form of government, two classes of citizens, one of the United States and one of the state".
---------------
(BTW- It's also why illegals are so *special* in our country. Because they are NOT 'US Citizens'.)
The reelection rate is better than 90%.
The people largely get what they deserve.
And heaven help you on this site if you refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils.
Carolyn
Our masters will never release their grip. It has to be forcefully removed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.