"Unapportioned Direct-Consumption Taxes and the Sixteenth Amendment" by Erik M. Jensen
 

Authors

Erik M. Jensen

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

Publication Date

2006

Document Type

Article

Place of Original Publication

Tax Notes

Publication Information

84 Tax Notes 1089 (1999)

Plum Print visual indicator of research metrics
PlumX Metrics
  • Usage
    • Downloads: 738
    • Abstract Views: 16
  • Social Media
    • Shares, Likes & Comments: 1
see details

Share

COinS Erik M. Jensen Faculty Bio