Taxation and the Constitution, Reconsidered

83 Pages Posted: 20 Apr 2022 Last revised: 17 Sep 2023

See all articles by John R. Brooks

John R. Brooks

Fordham University School of Law

David Gamage

University of Missouri School of Law

Date Written: September 17, 2023

Abstract

Our current income tax is unable to address growing concentrations of financial wealth and resulting economic inequality. But reforms to address these problems—such as a wealth tax or an income tax on unrealized capital gains—are stymied by fears of unconstitutionality. The basic claim is that wealth taxes and similar reforms are “direct taxes” under the Apportionment Clauses of the Constitution, and since apportionment is not feasible, these taxes are impossible. But this claim is wrong.

This Article shows that there is in fact a long history of federal taxes similar to wealth taxes—both apportioned and uniform—and a well-developed constitutional tax jurisprudence to go along with that history. This jurisprudence has laid mostly dormant during the past century-plus of the income tax era, but a reconsideration of taxation and the Constitution shows that we should now have multiple viable paths for taxing extreme concentrations of wealth.

In particular, we call for reviving a two paths approach to constitutional tax questions, which was dominant for most of the first century of United States history. Under this view, apportionment, like uniformity, is merely a method of taxation, not a barrier. We show for the first time in the literature how this method is practically viable today using modern fiscal instruments.

We also show for the first time in the literature that there is coherent and mostly consistent Supreme Court jurisprudence to guide the two paths approach, even including the much-reviled case of Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co. Central to this jurisprudence is what we call the Excise Tax Canon, a quasi-canon of constitutional interpretation under which prominent wealth tax and similar reforms should be upheld as excises that can follow the uniformity path.

Finally, because there is uncertainty about which path—apportionment or uniformity—the Supreme Court might require, we propose strategies for drafting a tax reform to navigate those uncertainties.

Keywords: Wealth Tax, Capital Gains, Accrual-Income Tax, Excise Tax Canon, Excise, 16th Amendment, Apportionment

JEL Classification: K34

Suggested Citation

Brooks, John R. and Gamage, David, Taxation and the Constitution, Reconsidered (September 17, 2023). 76 Tax Law Review 75 (2022), Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4061257 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4061257

John R. Brooks

Fordham University School of Law ( email )

140 West 62nd Street
New York, NY 10023
United States

HOME PAGE: http://https://www.fordham.edu/info/30655/john_brooks

David Gamage (Contact Author)

University of Missouri School of Law ( email )

Missouri Avenue & Conley Avenue
Columbia, MO MO 65211
United States

HOME PAGE: http://law.missouri.edu/person/david-gamage/

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics

Downloads
604
Abstract Views
2,289
Rank
91,708
PlumX Metrics