|
Foundational case allegedly explaining the nature of an income tax and of the
Sixteenth Amendment.
John Stanton was a stockholder of the Baltic Mining Company. Like the Brushaber
v. Union Pacific case, Stanton had attempted to enjoin the company in the hopes of stopping the
company from complying with the tax provisions of the tariff act of October 3, 1913.
Because the grounds for equitable relief sought in the case were essentially the same as those in the
Brushaber case, the Court saw no controversy. Like Frank Brushaber, Stanton’s case had been dismissed
for lack of equity, that is, a proper cause of action.
In confirming their opinion in the Brushaber case, the Court stated, “But, aside from the obvious
error of the proposition, intrinsically considered, it manifestly disregards the fact that by the
previous ruling [Brushaber] it was settled that the provisions of the Sixteenth
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…” [emphasis added].
Full text: Stanton v. Baltic Mining
Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916) |