This article needs additional citations for verification. (January 2011) |
Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad | |
---|---|
Argued October 14–15, 1915 Decided January 24, 1916 | |
Full case name | Frank R. Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company |
Citations | 240 U.S. 1 (more) |
Case history | |
Prior | Dismissed by the District Court for the Southern District of New York |
Subsequent | None |
Holding | |
(1) The Sixteenth Amendment removes the requirement that income taxes (whether considered to be direct taxes or indirect taxes) be apportioned among the states according to population (Article I, section 9, clause 4 of the US Constitution); (2) the Federal income tax statute does not violate the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against the government taking property without due process of law; (3) the Federal income tax statute does not violate the uniformity clause of Article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinion | |
Majority | White, joined by unanimous |
McReynolds took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. amend. XVI |
Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the validity of a tax statute called the Revenue Act of 1913, also known as the Tariff Act, Ch. 16, 38 Stat. 166 (October 3, 1913), enacted pursuant to Article I, section 8, clause 1 of, and the Sixteenth Amendment to, the United States Constitution, allowing a federal income tax. The Sixteenth Amendment had been ratified earlier in 1913. The Revenue Act of 1913 imposed income taxes that were not apportioned among the states according to each state's population.