Unapportioned Direct-Consumption Taxes and the Sixteenth Amendment

10 Pages Posted: 11 Mar 2009

See all articles by Erik M. Jensen

Erik M. Jensen

Case Western Reserve University School of Law

Abstract

The point of this essay is simple: a direct-consumption tax like the Forbes-Armey-Hall-Rabushka flat tax or the Nunn-Domenici USA tax is not a "tax on incomes" within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment. As a result, such a tax would be constitutional only if it were apportioned among the states on the basis of population. And since these taxes would not be apportioned-how could they be and work as they are intended to work?-they would be unconstitutional.

Keywords: Taxation, Sixteenth Amendment, Direct-Consumption Tax, Constitutional Law

JEL Classification: K10, K34

Suggested Citation

Jensen, Erik M., Unapportioned Direct-Consumption Taxes and the Sixteenth Amendment. Tax Notes, Vol. 84, p. 1089, Aug. 16, 1999. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1356088

Erik M. Jensen (Contact Author)

Case Western Reserve University School of Law ( email )

11075 East Boulevard
Cleveland, OH 44106-7148
United States
216-368-3613 (Phone)
216-368-2086 (Fax)

Register to save articles to
your library

Register

Paper statistics

Downloads
38
Abstract Views
294
PlumX Metrics