Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co.
Supreme Court of the United States
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS. The facts, which involve the constitutionality and construction of provisions of the Income Tax Law of 1913, and its application to mining corporations, are stated in the opinion. The Income Tax Law, as applied to mining companies, directly taxes a portion of their principal or capital, without apportionment according to population, and, therefore, is unconstitutional.
Read the full summary
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS. The facts, which involve the constitutionality and construction of provisions of the Income Tax Law of 1913, and its application to mining corporations, are stated in the opinion. The Income Tax Law, as applied to mining companies, directly taxes a portion of their principal or capital, without apportionment according to population, and, therefore, is unconstitutional. Direct taxes on principal or capital, not being taxes on income, are not authorized by the. Sixteenth Amendment. Stratton’s Independence,…
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice White
As in Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. R., ante, p. 1, this case was commenced by the appellant as a stockholder of the Baltic Mining Company, the appellee, to enjoin the voluntary payment by the corporation and its officers of the tax assessed against it under the Income Tax section of the Tariff Act of October 3, 1913, c. 16, § 2, 38 Stat. 166, 181. As the grounds for the equitable relief sought in this case so far as the question .of jurisdiction is concerned are substantially the same as those which were relied upon in the Brushaber' Case, it follows that the ruling in that case upholding…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1895
- Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1895
- Stratton's Independence, Ltd. v. HowbertSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
3Cited by142 opinions
- Eisner v. MacOmberSupreme Court of the United States · 1920
- Burnet v. HarmelSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
- Eisner, Internal Revenue Collector v. MacOmberSupreme Court of the United States · 1919
- Morrissey v. CommissionerSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
- Von Baumbach v. Sargent Land Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1917
137 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.