Purchase Solution

Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)

Not what you're looking for?

Ask Custom Question

Why did the U.S. Supreme Court once rule that the federal income tax was unconstitutional?

How did Congress react?

Purchase this Solution
Solution Summary

This is a 4,043 word case brief of Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429 (1895), aff'd on reh'g, 158 U.S. 601 (1895), the landmark case wherein the Supreme Court ruled that the federal income tax was unconstitutional. An added section describes how Congress reacted to this ruling.

Solution Preview

The landmark case wherein the Supreme Court ruled that the federal income tax was unconstitutional is Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429 (1895), aff'd on reh'g, 158 U.S. 601 (1895).

Facts of the Case:

The U.S. Constitution before the Pollock decision gave states the power over direct taxation. The federal government could impost direct taxes but only if the taxes were apportioned among the states in proportion to their representation in Congress. During this period the federal statute governing national income tax was the Revenue Act of 1894.

Specifically the Revenue Act of 1894 required a tax of 2% for a period of five years of any gains, profits and incomes in excess of $4,000. To comply with this new Act, Farmer's Loan & Trust Company announced that besides paying the tax for the company, it would provide to the Department of Treasury all the names of the shareholders of Farmer's who were liable to pay taxes pursuant to this Act. Charles Pollock was one of these ...

Purchase this Solution
Free BrainMass Quizzes
Criminal Defenses Review

Test your knowledge of the basics of criminal law and defenses with this quiz.

Title VII

This Quiz pertains to the spectrum of Human Rights through Title VII

Evidence

Do you know your evidence objections? Find out with this quiz!

Constitutional Law Rights

How much do you know about Constitutional Law Rights? Find out with this quiz!

Title VII Laws

Learn the basics of the laws under Title VII.

View More Free Quizzes
Related BrainMass Solutions

  • Pollock vs. Farmers Loan and Trust Co.

    However, many don't realize that at one time the U.S. Supreme Court once ruled that the federal income tax system was unconstitutional. The law itself was challenged in 1894 in the case of Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 (1895).

  • Taxation: sixteenth Amendment, powers of Congress, limit of powers, evolution of IRC

    Court's decision in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Co. whereby the Congress attempts to levy income taxes uniformly was judged to be unconstitutional. Thus, the Amendment was worded specifically to give the U.S.

  • Constitutional and Administrative Law..

    Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company 158 U.S. 601 (1895). Retrieved April 12, 2016, from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/158/601/ Merlinus Goodman Monroe, LLC. (2014). Summary Judgment With Fewer Than Thirty Days' Notice.

  • The egg Industry, OPEC, Antitrust Law, and the Consumer

    Detroit Edison Co. (1976) 429 U.S. 477, Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc. (1976) 431 U.S. 720, Illinois Brick Co. v. Iliinois (1977) 433 U.S. 36, Continental T.V., Inc., et al. v. GTE Sylvania Inc. (1977) 433 U.S. 350, Bates v.

  • A case involving disparate treatment

    Here's the most recent: Raytheon Co. v. Hernandez, 540 U.S. 44, 124 S. Ct. 513, 157 L. Ed. 2d 357, 2003 U.S.

  • Case that illustrates disparate impact

    Here are a few: Raytheon Co. v. Hernandez, 540 U.S. 44, 124 S. Ct. 513, 157 L. Ed. 2d 357, 2003 U.S.

  • OLD COLONY TRUST CO. v. COM'R OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    120280 Old Colony Trust Co. vs. Com'r of Internal Revenue Short Case Brief OLD COLONY TRUST CO. v. COM'R OF INTERNAL REVENUE, 279 U.S. 716 (1929). See attached file for full problem description. OLD COLONY TRUST CO. v.

  • deposit & trust embezzlement

    The segregation of duties at Providence Deposit & Trust was deficient. In particular, the signature requirements were not adequate. The physical controls were inefficient (Office of the Federal Register (U.S.), 2010),.

  • Eminent Domain and the Kelo v. City of New London Case

    See Noble v. Oklahoma City, 297 U.S. 481 (1936); Luxton v. North River Bridge Co., 153 U.S. 525 (1895). One of the earliest examples is Curtiss v. Georgetown & Alexandria Turnpike Co., 10 U.S. (6 Cr.) 233 (1810).

View More Related Solutions