[al_possum39]

Okay. I think I see what you are saying. A tax on any exchange of property is indirect. So the fix in the sixteenth was unnecessary.

Okay then I was wrong about an amendment being required for the NST.      'preciate the info.

[ancient_geezer]

So the fix in the sixteenth was unnecessary.

That's what the Supreme Court recognised in:

Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co.(1916), 240 U.S. 103:

• "the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment"

The 16th was more a restriction on the Courts ability to "interpret" the taxing clauses of the Constitution than is was a change in the inherent power of Congress to lay and collect taxes. The power to lay and collect the "income" tax was recognized long before the 16th, especially as it concerned individuals in commercial relationships with others.