History Of The Federal Income Tax

The powers of Congress, and the limitations set upon those powers, are set forth in Article I of the United States Constitution. Section 8 specifies both the power to collect, "Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises," and the requirement that, "Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

One of the major concerns of the Constitutional Convention was to limit the powers of the Federal Government. Among the powers to be limited was the power of taxation. It was thought that head taxes and property taxes (slaves could be taxed as either or both) were likely to be abused, and that they bore no relation to the activities in which the Federal Government had a legitimate interest. The fourth clause of section 9 therefore specifies that, "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

The courts have generally held that direct taxes are limited to taxes on people (variously called capitation, poll tax or head tax) and property. (Penn Mutual Indemnity Co. v. C.I.R., 227 F.2d 16, 19-20 (3rd Cir. 1960).) All other taxes are commonly referred to as "indirect taxes," because they tax an event, rather than a person or property per se. (Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548, 581-582 (1937).) What seemed to be a straightforward limitation on the power of the legislature based on the subject of the tax proved inexact and unclear when applied to an income tax, which can be arguably viewed either as a direct or an indirect tax.

In order to help pay for its war effort in the American Civil War, the United States government issued its first personal income tax, on August 5, 1861 as part of the Revenue Act of 1861 (3% of all incomes over US $800; rescinded in 1872). Other income taxes followed, although a 1895 Supreme Court ruling, Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., held that taxes on capital gains, dividends, interest, rents and the like were unapportioned direct taxes on property, and therefore unconstitutional.

The Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution removed the limitations on Congress, paving the way for the income tax to become the government's main source of revenue; it states: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

A growing number of citizens seeks to challenge the power of the state to collect taxes by finding a way to discount the sixteenth amendment. The italicized paragraphs below are represenative of these attempts:

Lower federal courts sometimes refer to "unapportioned direct taxes" and similar catch phrases to describe the power of Congress to tax income. (See U.S. v. Turano, 802 F.2d 10, 12 (1st Cir. 1986). ("The 16th Amendment eliminated the indirect/direct distinction as applied to taxes on income.")) This, however, does not seem to be the stated position of the Supreme Court.

Yet, despite popular opinion, the 16th Amendment did not give Congress any new taxing powers. In Treasury Decision 2303, the Secretary of the Treasury directly quoted the Supreme Court (Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. (240 U.S. 103)) in saying that "The provisions of the 16th amendment conferred no new power of taxation," but instead simply prohibited Congress original power to tax incomes "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 closest the Supreme Court has come to saying that "from whatever source derived" in the amendment expanded the taxing power of Congress was in Justice Holmes' dissent in Evans v Gore (253 U.S. 245, 267 (1920). (Holmes dissent) (Partially overruled by U.S. v Hatter. 532 U.S. 557 (2001), with respect to the prior reasoning about the compensation clause.)). In that case, the Court was considering the effect the 16th Amendment had on the compensation clause, and specifically whether the compensation of judges was unlawfully reduced by the imposition of the income tax. Justice Holmes opined that under the 16th Amendment, "Congress is given power to collect taxes on incomes from whatever source derived ?[so] it seems to me that the Amendment was intended to put an end to the cause and not merely obviate" the result in Pollock. (Id.) Even in this case, though, the majority affirmed the more restrictive interpretation of the Amendment. (Id. at 262-263. (Majority opinion))

The federal income tax statutes echos the language of the 16th amendment in stating that it reaches "all income from whatever source derived," (26 USC s. 61) including criminal enterprises; criminals who fail to report their income accurately have been successfully prosecuted for tax evasion. Since the language of the amendment is clearly meant to restrict the jurisdiction of the courts, it is not immediately clear why the courts emphasize the words "all income" and ignore the derivation of the entire phrase to interpret this section - except to reach a desired political result.

Arguments about the meaning of the current income tax has continued for nearly 100 years. Courts are reluctant to support a literal reading of the tax laws in favor of potential taxpayers, since it can lead to tax avoidance. Professor Soled points out why judicial doctrines are used against tax avoidance strategies in general,

"The use of judicial doctrines to curtail tax avoidance is pervasive in the area of income taxation. There are several reasons for this phenomenon: central among them is that courts believe that if the Internal Revenue Code ("Code") were read literally, impermissible tax avoidance would become the norm rather than the exception. No matter how perceptive the legislature, it cannot anticipate all events and circumstances that may unfold, and, due to linguistic limitations, statutes do not always capture the essence of what is intended. Judicial doctrines fill the void left either by the legislature or by the words of the Code. Another reason for the popularity of these doctrines is that courts do not want to appear duped by taxpayers..." (Jay A. Soled, Use of Judicial Doctrines in Resolving Transfer Tax Controversies, 42 B.C. L. Rev 587, 588-589 (2001).)

Of course, if the intent of Congress was to actually reach all income then the simplest way to state s. 61 would be "all income ***however realized.***" Instead, s. 61 mentions sources and other sections of the federal tax code actually lists about 20 sources of income that are specifically taxed. (26 USC ss. 861-864.) A common rule of statutory interpretation is the doctrine inclusio unius est exclusio alterius. This doctrine means "[t]he inclusion of one is the exclusion of another?This doctrine decrees that where law expressly describes [a] particular situation to which it shall apply, an irrefutable inference must be drawn that what is omitted or excluded was intended to be omitted or excluded." (Black's Law Dictionary 763 (6th Ed. 1990).) Since particular sources are listed as taxable in the tax law, then it is reasonable to infer that other sources of income are excluded from taxation. This argument is called the "861 source argument" and the courts refuse to analyze the argument despite consistently holding against it, even going so far as to issue restraining orders against people who publish websites about it. (U.S. v. Bell, 238 F.Supp.2d 696, 698 (M.D. Pa. 2003).''

In 1913 the tax rate was 1 percent on taxable net income above $3,000 ($4,000 for married couples), less deductions and exemptions. It rose to a rate of 7 percent on incomes above $500,000.

During World War I the top rate rose to 77 percent; following the war, the top rate was scaled down (to a low of 25 percent).

During the Great Depression and World War II, the top income tax rate rose again, reaching 91% during the war; this top rate remained in effect until 1964.

In 1964 the top rate was decreased to 70% (1964 Revenue Act), and then to 50% in 1981 (Economic Recovery Tax Act or ERTA).

The Tax Reform Act of 1986 reduced the top rate to 28%, at the same time raising the bottom rate from 11% to 15% (in fact 15% and 28% became the only two tax brackets).

During the 1990s the top rate rose again, standing at 39.6% by the end of the decade.

In 2001 the top rate was cut to 35% and the bottom rate was cut to 10% by the EGTRRA, or Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act.

In 2003 the JGTRRA, or Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act, was passed, expanding the 10% tax bracket and accelerating some of the changes passed in the 2001 EGTRRA.

What Is Tax Law?

The federal tax code is complex. This complexity generally arises from two factors: the use of the tax code for purposes other than raising revenue, and the feedback process of amending the code.

While its main intent is to provide revenue for the federal government, the tax code is frequently used to direct the behavior of businesses and individuals in an attempt to achieve social, economic, and political goals.

For example, the tax law provides a deduction for mortgage interest in order to encourage home ownership. A theoretically pure income tax would not allow this deduction, which is not an expense incurred for the production of income. The allowance of the mortgage interest deduction is seen by some as discrimination against taxpayers who rent, rather than own, their home: the payment of rent for one's home is not deductible. Of course in theory, landlords generate tax savings on their mortgage interest payments, and pass these savings on to renters.

Because the government uses the tax code as an instrument of social policy, the code as a whole appears to lack a coherent organizing principle. This lack of a coherent organizing principle has become magnified over time, due to the interplay between successive legislative amendments and regulatory changes to the law and the private sector responses to those amendments and changes. For instance, suppose that Congress enacts a tax credit to encourage a particular type of activity. In response, a group of taxpayers who are not the intended beneficiaries of the credit re-order their affairs, or the superficial aspects of their affairs, to qualify for the credit.

Congress responds by amending the code to add restrictions and target the credit more effectively. Certain taxpayers manage to use this change to claim additional benefits, so Congress acts again, and so on. The result is a feedback loop of enactment and response, which, over an extended period of time, produces significant complexity.

In general, the U.S. income tax is highly progressive, at least with respect to individuals that earn wage income. As of 2001, the top 1 percent of individual taxpayers paid approximately 23 percent of all federal taxes. The top 5 percent paid approximately 39 percent, and the top 10 percent paid 50 percent of all federal taxes. The bottom 20 percent of taxpayers paid a little over 1 percent of all federal taxes.

Moreover, the progressivity of the U.S. tax system has gradually increased over recent decades. The top 20 percent of taxpayers paid approximately 56 percent of all taxes in 1980, and this figure gradually has risen to 65 percent, as of 2001. In recent years, however, a reduction in the tax rates applicable to capital gains has significantly reduced the income tax burden on non-wage income. In this regard, the general structure of the U.S. tax system has begun to resemble a partial consumption-tax regime.

Send Your Kids To Summer Camp and Write It Off

If you paid someone to care for a child so you could work, you may be able claim a tax credit for child and dependent care expenses on your federal income tax return. This credit is available to people who, in order to work or to look for work, have to pay for child care services for dependents under age 13.

The credit is a percentage, based on your adjusted gross income, of the amount of work-related child and dependent care expenses you paid to a care provider. The credit can range from 20 to 35 percent of your qualifying expenses, depending upon your income.

For 2004, you may use up to $3,000 of the expenses paid in a year for one child or $6,000 for two or more children. These dollar limits must be reduced by the amount of any dependent care benefits provided by your employer that you exclude from your income.

To claim the credit for child and dependent care expenses, you must meet the following conditions:

1. You must have earned income from wages, salaries, tips or other taxable employee compensation, or net earnings from self-employment. If you are married, both you and your spouse must have earned income, unless one spouse was either a full-time student or was physically or mentally incapable of self-care.

2. The payments for care cannot be paid to someone you can claim as a dependent or to your child who is under age 19.

3. Your filing status must be single, head of household, qualifying widow(er) with a dependent child, or married filing jointly.

4. The care must have been provided for one or more qualifying persons identified on the form you use to claim the credit.

5. Your children must reside with you.

What is a "qualifying" child? The child must have been under age 13 when care was provided and you must be able to claim the child as an exemption on your tax return. A spouse who is mentally or physically unable to care for himself or herself also qualifies.

You should read IRS publication 503 or speak with a tax professional to learn more. Still, it is nice to know you can write off those swimming lessons.

What You Need To Know About Taxes If You're Getting Married

It may not be high on the list of wedding planning activities, but there are a few simple steps that can help keep tax issues from interrupting your newly wedded bliss. If you recently married, check out your new tax situation. You might save money or even prevent the problem of a missing refund check.

The first things to handle are changes of name and address. Later, as tax season approaches, consider whether or not you'll itemize deductions, which tax return form is right for you and what filing status you'll use.

No one should delay the cake cutting or honeymoon because of taxes. But here are some helpful hints for later:

Use Your Correct Name

You must provide correct names and identification numbers to claim personal exemptions on your tax return. If you changed your name upon marrying, let the Social Security Administration know and update your Social Security card so the number matches your new name. Use Form SS-5, Application for a Social Security Card.

Change of Address

If you or your spouse has a new address, notify the U.S. Postal Service so that it will be able to forward any tax refunds or IRS correspondence. The Postal Service will also pass your new address on to IRS for updating. You may also notify to notify the IRS directly by filing Form 8822.

Refund Checks

Each year, the Postal Service returns thousands of tax refund checks as undeliverable, usually because the addressee has moved. Notifying both the Postal Service and the IRS of an address change in a timely manner can help ensure the proper delivery of any refund checks. To check the status of a tax refund, go to the IRS web site and use the "Where's My Refund?" service.

Changing Filing Status

Your marital status on December 31 determines whether you are considered married for that year. Married persons may file their federal income tax return either jointly or separately in any given year. Choosing the right filing status may save you money.

A joint return (Married Filing Jointly) allows spouses to combine their income and to deduct combined deductions and expenses on a single tax return. Both spouses must sign the return and both are held responsible for the contents.

With separate returns (Married Filing Separately), each spouse signs, files and is responsible for his or her own tax return. Each is taxed on his or her own income, and can take only his or her individual deductions and credits. If one spouse itemizes deductions, the other must also.

Which filing status should you select? It depends entirely on your specific situation. You should consider sitting down with a tax professional to make a determination.

What to Do If You Can't Pay Your Taxes

The end of tax filing extensions is quickly approaching. What do you do if you can't pay the amounts you owe? You should still file your return by the due date and pay as much as you can. There are, however, additional steps that might help.

Credit Cards

You can charge your taxes on your American Express, MasterCard, Visa or Discover cards. If you go in this direction, you can use either of the following two sources:

Official Payments Corporation
1-800-2PAY-TAX (1-800-272-9829)
www.officialpayments.com

Link2Gov Corporation
1-888-PAY-1040 (1-888-729-1040)
www.pay1040.com

If a credit card is out of the question, you may be able to pay any remaining balance over time in monthly installments through an installment agreement. If you are completely wiped out and the future looks grim, you may also want to consider getting the tax amount reduced through the Offer in Compromise program.

To apply for an installment payment plan, fill out and attach Form 9465 to the front of your tax return. The IRS has streamlined the approval process if your total taxes (not counting interest, penalties or other additions) do not exceed $25,000 and can be paid off in five years or less. Be sure to show the amount of your proposed monthly payment and the date you wish to make your payment each month. Make absolutely sure you can make the payments.

The IRS charges a $43 fee for setting up an installment agreement. You will also be charged interest plus a late payment penalty on the unpaid taxes. The late payment penalty is usually one-half of one percent per month or part of a month of your unpaid tax. The penalty rate is reduced to one-quarter of one percent for any month an Installment Agreement is in effect if you filed your return by the due date (including extensions). The maximum failure to pay penalty is 25 percent of the tax paid late.

If you do not file your return by the due date (including extensions), you may have to pay a penalty for filing late. The penalty for failing to file and pay timely is usually five percent of the unpaid tax for each month or part of a month that your return is late. The maximum penalty for failure to file and pay on time is 25 percent of your unpaid tax.

In Closing

The IRS wants you in the system, even if you're broke. Whatever you do, file your tax return in a timely manner. Once filed, the IRS will work with you on payment issues. Don't get stressed. Keep in mind that millions of Americans have the same problem.

IRS Statute of Limitations: Do Taxes Ever Expire?

Many Americans believe that an IRS debt is a debt for life and that the tax collector can hound them to the grave. Thankfully, that is not the case and there are statutory time limits on the ability of the IRS to examine and collect taxes. Taxes do expire at some point and in some cases IRS does not get the money they were legally entitled to collect.

Basically, IRS has 10 years from the date they send out their first bill to collect the tax. The 10 year rule does not apply to the states. Some, like California have no statute of limitations and the state tax collector can indeed hound you forever. The federal tax collector must get the cash before the clock runs out.

For tax assessments made after November 5, 1990, the IRS cannot collect the tax after 10 years from the date of the original assessment absent special circumstances. Special circumstances that may extend the statute are: a bankruptcy not completed or wherein the tax is not discharged; filing an Offer-in-Compromise; or signing a Form 900 Waiver allowing the United States additional time to collect the tax. Also, it is possible for the government to sue to reduce the tax claim to judgment before the 10 years expires.

If you never file a tax return, there is no statute of limitations on IRS requiring you to file, but as a matter of policy, IRS generally only requires non-filers to file the last 6-7 years. If IRS files for you by doing a Substitute-for-Return (SFR), they have 10 years from the date they file the SFR to collect from you. If a Federal Tax Lien is on file against you, it expires and becomes void if the underlying statute expires.

You can find out when the statute expires on your tax bill by requesting a Record of Accounts (ROA) from IRS for each tax year you owe. If you can't afford to pay the tax, your account might be eligible to be put in a "temporary hardship" status. It may be possible to "ride out" the statute in hardship if you qualify. An impending statute might also be a beneficial factor in an Offer-in-Compromise.

If you have a refund coming to you, you only have 3 years from the due date to collect your refund. If you file 3 or more years after the due date, the refund is lost. In some cases you can peruse a refund beyond the three years. If you full pay the tax, you can file a claim for refund within 2 years of the payment. If your claim relates to a bad debt or worthless security, you have 7 years to make a claim.

The flipside to the 3 year refund rule is that IRS only has 3 years to examine a filed return by audit in most cases. Now, the tax code is complicated and there are exceptions to these rules. If you have committed fraud or tax evasion, there is no statute for audit. There is also a 6 year rule for audit in cases of "substantial omission" of 25% or more in income. But for most folks, the three year statute will apply on audits.

Websites that can help you research these issues are: www.irs.gov, www.naea.org, www.exirsman.com, www.taxattorney.com, and www.etaxes.com. I do not recommend dealing with IRS on your own. You should get help from a tax pro if you have a tax collection or audit issue. Don't hire some company you saw on a TV commercial, hire a flesh and blood person or reputable firm. A good CPA, Enrolled Agent (EA), Accredited Tax Advisor (ATA), or Tax Attorney can be invaluable. If you want to call IRS yourself, they can be reached at 1-800-829-1040.

Furnishing Evidence in E-Tax Compliance

Self-assessment relies on taxpayers voluntarily meeting their tax obligations. This concept is recognised in all tax statutes, which sets out taxpayers' primary obligations, and clearly spells out that taxpayers are required to determine the amount of tax payable correctly and to pay it on time.

Disclosure in this context serves two main purposes. First, it is necessary to provide information for audit selection. Secondly, disclosure is relevant to the issue of the abatement of penalties.

Taxpayers have a statutory obligation to disclose to the Commissioner in a timely and useful way all information required to be disclosed under the tax laws. Disclosure here covers items specifically required to be disclosed by statute, and items for which disclosure is required by the Central Board of Revenue Department. For income tax, under section 26 of sale tax act 1990 and 114 of income tax ordinance 2001, the departments requires a complete statement of the taxable income of the taxpayer for the preceding year, together with such other particulars as may be prescribed. The department's disclosure expectations cover any requirements set out in a particular tax return, in the guide accompanying a particular tax return, or matters for which a specific disclosure form is prescribed.

In the area of tax returns and compliance, electronic commerce may create new variations on old issues as well as new categories of issues. These developments require that practical techniques be developed to deal with these technological innovations. These technological developments touch on a wide range of issues affecting the filing of tax returns.

Electronic commerce is still developing and no electronic money system has yet achieved widespread usage. Nevertheless, it is important to consider these issues now since some issues may require that the needs of filing and providing of tax returns be considered tax returns be addressed while electronic commerce systems are still under development, the filing of tax return of e-business and furnishing evidence. Commerce on the Web can actually facilitate compliance with consumer disclosure requirements.

A New Yorker cartoon once featured two dogs sitting in front of a computer with a caption that read "[O]n the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog." Tax administrators face a similar issue.

Under clause (a) subsection 1 of section 114 of Income tax Ordinance 2001 has make it obligatory on Every person and company regarding filing of the tax return, "?subject to this Ordinance, the following persons are required to furnish a return of income for a tax year, namely (a) Every company and any other person whose taxable income for the year exceeds the maximum amount that is not chargeable to tax under this Ordinance for the year;"

Under section 26 of Sale Tax Act 1990 has make it obligatory on every person and company regarding filing of the monthly tax return, "?Every registered person shall furnish not later than the due date a true and correct return in the prescribed form to a designated bank specified by the Board, indicating the purchases and the supplies made during a tax period, the tax due and paid and such other information, as may be prescribed"

Under section 26AA of Sale Tax Act 1990 has make it obligatory on every person and company regarding filing of the Retail tax return, "?Every person required to pay turnover tax shall furnish a true and correct return in the prescribed form to the Office of the Collector having jurisdiction indicating the value of supplies made in tax period, the tax paid and such other information as may be prescribed."

Identification of the parties to a transaction is a necessary first step in determining what the tax liability is for the transaction and who is liable for any tax payable. In relation to e-commerce, special difficulties are presented. Where business is done through a website the tax authorities must be able to link the website with the "real world" physical parties behind it. A website can easily conceal the true identity of the person benefiting from any business it does. On the Internet it is possible to use a false identity and it is not currently possible to independently verify a party's identity. This raises a number of issues because the identity of counterparty is important for numerous tax provisions.

Similarly, unless tax administrations actively look for signs that existing businesses are involved in e-commerce the existence of a website could remain undetected. Furthermore, websites can quite easily be set up offshore or offshore websites can "front" onshore business. It is imperative for Revenue to encourage voluntary disclosure of websites used as part of the selling and, possibly, distribution functions of a business. As a modest first step, tax forms will need to be changed to ask about e-commerce and to get the website address of any business selling on the internet.

Finally, how the tax returns and other documents are to be attached as provided in tax provisions.

The writer is an advocate of High Court and practicing immigration and corporate laws in Pakistan since September 2001. He is a self employed and pioneer in research on electronic commerce taxation in Pakistan. His articles were published widely in the critical areas of cyber crimes, electronic commerce, e-taxation and various other topics. He wrote LL.M thesis on titled "Legislation of electronic commerce taxation in Pakistan" in which he provided comprehensive legal proposals for statutory reconstruction of tax laws for purpose of imposition of taxation on e-business in Pakistan. Currently he is conducting is research on topic 'Electronic commerce taxation: emerging legal issues of digital evidence'.