Select a Chapter to start the court case quiz.
Court case: United States v. Butler
The Court agrees that “general welfare” qualifies the power to “lay and collect taxes.”
Court case: National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius
The Constitution protects us from federal regulation under
the taxing and spending clause.
the equal protection clause.
the commerce clause.
none of these
Court case: South Dakota v. Wayfair
The Court finds the physical presence rule is no longer formulated correctly.
Court case: Davis v. Michigan Dept. of Treasury
In 1939 Congress decided that
federal employees would always be exempt from state taxes.
federal employees should pay state taxes.
intergovernmental immunity should be fully codified.
Court case: South Carolina v. Baker
The Court upholds Pollock in this Baker.
Court case: Oregon Waste Systems v. Department of Environmental Quality of the State of Oregon
The state has not proven that the burden of the tax is a compensatory tax.
Court case: South Dakota v. Dole
O’Connor argues that this law erodes state powers.
Court case: Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co.
The good sought from unconstitutional legislation can make the law valid.
Owners of state bonds have no constitutional right to ignore paying taxes on income from state bonds.
Court case: United States v. United States Shoe Corporation
The Congress made clear the HMT was
a fee.
a tax.
constitutional.
The purpose of the law
has a clear bearing on whether it is facially invalid.
has no bearing on whether it is facially invalid.
is clearly a valid purpose.
all of these
Court case: Complete Auto Transit v. Brady
The Spector Rule is meant to impose a tax for the privilege of doing business in a state.
For the Court it is clear the department of agriculture is coercing farmers with economic pressure.
For the Court, the regulation is inconsistent with the restrictions imposed on the state.
Court case: Michelin Tire Corp. v. Wages
Past cases suggest that the tax here is not an impost or a duty.
Forcing South Dakota to raise the drinking age
is coercion.
is not coercion.
violates the 21st Amendment.
violates equal protection.
Court case: Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co.
The Court considers tax of income from property to be a direct tax.
According to the Court, the Framers believed the federal government would raise indirect taxes.
While the Congress cannot level export taxes it can levy user fees.
The Court argues that
the power to tax is only meant to raise money.
the power to tax is only meant.
the power to tax can be used for any purpose.
Harlan believes, in dissent, that income should be taxed and doing so is constitutional.
The Court cites Dagenhart as a key precedent in this case.
Stevens would stick with using McCulloch as the applicable precedent here.
The Court overrules the Spector rule.
Court case: Steward Machine Co. v. Davis
The excise tax is
valid under the 5th Amendment.
coercion under the 10th Amendment.
invalid under the 14th Amendment.
The employer does not have to pay the tax if he does not know an employee’s age.
Court case: McCray v. United States
The Congress can exert its police powers here without violating the 14th Amendment.
The dissenters believe states have always been required to govern according to the Congress’ instructions.
The Congress may attach restrictions on the receipt of federal funds for policy objective.
The 10th Amendment
has been violated here.
has not been violated here.
does not come into play in this case.
allows the federal government to do what it pleases here.
The Court finds that this excise tax violates the Constitution.
The majority argues that the ACA imposes a tax and not a penalty.
For the Court, the tax here is a direct tax.
Rehnquist would allow the export of the waste as a valid state policy.
The dissenters believe states have always been required to govern according to Congress’ instructions.
The exception to state taxes on federal compensation is that the tax cannot discriminate.
The federal government
cannot tax municipal bonds.
can tax municipal bonds.
can levy tax on personal property.
The judiciary may not restrain power here based on
the policy results of the law.
the discriminatory nature of the law.
the motive of Congress in the legislative intent.
The dissenters all believe this tax violates state power and sovereignty.
Taxes are meant to raise money and can
directly have a motive to change behavior.
only indirectly have a motive to change behavior.
never regulate behavior.
The Court concludes that
taxes on real estate are not direct taxes.
taxes on personal property are not direct taxes.
all sections that deal with direct taxes are unconstitutional.
The doctrine of state and federal salaries being exempt from taxation by another sovereign began in McCulloch.
Story believes, in dissent, that Congress can tax even if the purpose is simply to relieve economic pressures.
Why does the Court argue that this is a tax?
Because it raises at least some revenue.
It forces people to act in a given way.
It forces the government to provide health insurance.
None of these
The Court upholds Quill Corp. in this case.
There are key precedents that apply here as they focus on the Export Clause.
Congress may use its power to tax
if there is a national crisis.
to change behavior in certain states.
to coerce citizens into acting in a given way.
Conditions of a federal grant may be illegitimate if
they are only related to the interest in a project.
they are not related to the interest in a project.
they are only enforced sporadically.
States may
tax the U.S.
impose fees on the U.S.
tax private parties in a non-discriminatory manner.
Taxes fall on imports
based on place of origin.
based on the type of goods.
based on whether the good that are no longer in transit.
O’Connor argues, in dissent, that this case changes the imbalance of power between the U.S. and the states.
To be a fee, the Court says there must be a closer connection between the service rendered and the compensation received.
Taxes will be sustained as long as they
have a nexus with the taxing state.
are fairly apportioned.
do not discriminate against interstate commerce.
The Court cites Hewitt to suggest that
states may not impose taxes on an interstate transaction.
states may impose taxes on an interstate transaction.
states may impose any taxes they want at any time.
The discriminatory nature of the tax here
is key to the case.
leads to a new law being written.
is irrelevant into the nature of the two classes of inconsistent treatment.
In Wayfair, the Court
is willing to overturn existing precedent.
is unwilling to reconsider existing precedent.
ignores the physical presence requirement.
The Court argues that the only reason for the tax is
to stop child labor.
increase child labor.
raise revenue from the furniture industry.
raise revenue in a fair way.
For the Court,
states give up sovereignty here.
states are not subject to this tax.
states do not give up sovereignty here.
The Court overrules Low v. Austin.
The taxes here interfere with the free flow of goods.
A case is discriminatory if it taxes a transaction more heavily when it crosses state lines.
The judiciary may exercise its power to decide that a tax is levied for a wrongful purpose.
Butler does not apply in this case.
