William E. Peck & Co. v. Lowe
Supreme Court of the United States
EEBOB TO THE DISTBICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. The case is stated in the opinion. A tax upon income derived from exports, by whatever name it is called, is a tax upon exports, and is therefore unconstitutional. . Congress may no mote burden exports and exportation by indirection than by a tax directly upon the article exported; the substance and effect and not the form of a tax controls.
Read the full summary
EEBOB TO THE DISTBICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. The case is stated in the opinion. A tax upon income derived from exports, by whatever name it is called, is a tax upon exports, and is therefore unconstitutional. . Congress may no mote burden exports and exportation by indirection than by a tax directly upon the article exported; the substance and effect and not the form of a tax controls. Tbe principle here involved has found repeated examples in cases of state taxes, in various forms, burdening interstate and foreign commerce. Brown v. Maryland, 12…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Van Devanter
This was an action to recover a tax paid under protest and alleged to have been imposed contrary to the con stitutional provision (Art. 1, § 9, cl. 5) that “No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any State.” The judgment below was for the defendant. 234 Fed. Rep, 125.
The plaintiff is a domestic corporation chiefly engaged in buying goods in the several States, shipping them to foreign countries and there selling them. In 1914 its net income from this business was $30,173.66, and from other sources $12,436.24. An income tax for that year, computed on the aggregate of these…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Brown v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1827
- Brushaber v. Union Pacific RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
- Fairbank v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1901
- Cornell v. CoyneSupreme Court of the United States · 1904
- Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1916
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by127 opinions
- Eisner v. MacOmberSupreme Court of the United States · 1920
- Eisner, Internal Revenue Collector v. MacOmberSupreme Court of the United States · 1919
- Metcalf & Eddy v. MitchellSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Northwestern States Portland Cement Co. v. MinnesotaSupreme Court of the United States · 1959
- Shaffer v. CarterSupreme Court of the United States · 1920
122 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.