TYEE REALTY COMPANY
v.
ANDERSON, COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE; THORNE V. SAME

U.S. | 1916-02-21
Nos. 393, 394
Mr. Justice McReynolds took no part in the consideration and decision of these eases.
240 U.S. 115 Supreme Court of the United States (1916) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 60 L. Ed. 554 · 36 S. Ct. 281 · SCDB 1915-081 · 1916 U.S. LEXIS 1432
Cited by 10 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

Tyee Realty Company and Thorne challenged the constitutionality of the income tax imposed under the Tariff Act of 1913, arguing it exceeded Congress's power under the Sixteenth Amendment and constituted an unapportioned direct tax in violation of the Constitution. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' dismissals, holding that all constitutional challenges to the income tax had been resolved adversely to the taxpayers in the contemporaneous decision of Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad, making that case controlling precedent.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Chief Justice White

Mr. Chief Justice White delivered the opinion of the court.

Both the plaintiffs in error, the one in 393 a corporation and the other in 394 an individual, paid under protest to the Collector of Internal Revenue, taxes assessed under the Income Tax section of the Tariff Act of October 3, 1913 (§ II, ch. 16, 38 Stat. 166). After an adverse ruling by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue on appeals which were prosecuted conformably to the statute (Rev. Stat., §§ 3220, 3226) by both the parties for a refunding to them of the taxes.paid, these suits were commenced to recover the amounts paid on the ground of the repugnancy to the Constitution of the section of the statute under which the taxes had been collected, and the cases are here on direct writs of error to the judgments of the court below sustaining demurrers to both complaints' on the ground that they stated no cause of action.

Every contention relied upon for reversal in the two cases is embraced within the following propositions: (a) that the tax imposed by the statute was not sanctioned by the Sixteenth Amendment because the statute exceeded the exceptional and limited power of direct income taxation for the first time conferred upon Congress by that Amendment and, being outside of the Amendment and governed solely therefore by the general taxing authority conferred upon Congress by the Constitution, the tax was void as an attempt to levy a direct tax without apportionment under the rule established by Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan &. Trust Co., 157 U. S. 429; 15.8 U. S. 601. (b) That the statute is moreover repugnant to the Constitution be-' cause of the provision therein contained for its retroactive operation for a designated time and because of the illegal discriminations and inequalities which it creates, including the provision for a progressive tax on the income of individuals and the method provided in the statute for computing the taxable income of corporations.

But we need not now enter into an original consideration of the merits pf these contentions because each and all of them were considered and adversely disposed of in Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. R., ante, p. 1. , That case, therefore, is here absolutely controlling and decisive. It follows that for the reasons stated in the opinion in the Brushaber Case the judgments in these cases must be and they are

Affirmed.

Mr. Justice McReynolds took no part in the consideration and decision of these eases.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Helvering v. Midland Mut. Life Ins. Co., 300 U.S. 216 (U.S. 1937)
    …lity has frequently been determined without reference to factors which the accountant, economist or business man might deem relevant to the computation of net gain. Compare Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U. S. 1; Tyee Realty Co. v. Anderson, 240 U. S. 115; Weiss v. Wiener, 279 U. S. 333; Helvering v. Independent [*226] Life Insurance Co., 292 U. S. 371. The exigencies of a tax determined on an annual basis may lead to the inclusion as income of items which might be shown to involve no gain if the tra…
  • William H. and Avilda L. Edwards v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue, 680 F.2d 1268 (9th Cir. 1982)
    …s may be read to claim that the income tax, the Internal Revenue Code, or statutes establishing the Tax Court are unconstitutional, we summarily reject such arguments. They have been raised and rejected many times. E.g., Tyee Realty Co. v. Anderson, 240 U.S. 115, 117-18, 36 S.Ct. 281, 282, 60 L.Ed. 554 (1916) (income tax constitutional); Ginter v. Southern, 611 F. 2d 1226,1229 (8th Cir. 1979) (tax protestor’s claims concerning constitutionality of Internal Revenue Code and establishment of Tax Court so friv…
    1 / 2
  • United States v. Moore, 692 F.2d 95 (10th Cir. 1979)
    …challenges the constitutionality of the direct progressive income tax. The Supreme Court has found this tax valid under the Sixteenth Amendment. Brushaber v. Union Pac. R., 240 U.S. 1, 36 S.Ct. 236, 60 L.Ed. 493 (1916); Tyee Realty Co. v. Anderson, 240 U.S. 115, 36 S.Ct. 281, 60 L.Ed. 554 (1916). Defendant also argues that the income tax laws are unconstitutional as applied to him because wages received for labor are not “income” and so they cannot be directly taxed. The Supreme Court has defined “income”…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw