[Citations are to Pages] Wilson v. Gaines, 103 U. S. 417 (1880) Wilson v. Shearer, 9 Met. 504 (1845) Wilson v. United States, 221 U. S. 361 (1911) Williston Seminary v. Hampshire Co. Com'rs, 147 Mass. 427 (1888) Wilson v. Terry, 9 Allen 214 (1864) 201 26 28 336, 398 223, 224, 225 592 Winnisimmet Co. v. Assr's of Chelsea, 6 Cush. 477 (1850) 250, 266, 288, 289, 290 Winona etc. Land Co v. Minnesota, 159 U. S. 526 (1895) Winthrop v. Soule, 175 Mass. 400 (1900) Wisconsin v. Pelican Insurance Co. 127 U. S. 265 (1888) Wisconsin etc. R. R. Co. v. Powers, 191 U. S. 379 (1903) Wisconsin Central R. R. Co. v. Price County, 133 U. S. 496 (1889) Witherell v. Ruecking Construction Co., 249 U. S. 63 (1919) Withington v. Eveleth, 7 Pick. 106 (1828). Withington v. Harvard, 8 Cush. 66 (1851) Wolff v. New Orleans, 103 U. S. 358 (1880) Wood v. Bogle, 115 Mass. 30 (1874) Wood v. Hudson, 114 Mass. 513 (1874) 59, 62, 65 327 32, 86 27, 70 47 125 47, 59 316 312 25 234 679 Woodlawn Cemetery v. Everett, 118 Mass. 354 (1875) Wood v. Torrey, 97 Mass. 321 (1867) 246, 333 Woodbridge v. Mayor & Aldermen of Cambridge, 114 Mass. 483 (1874) 710, 711 Worcester v. Board of Appeal, 184 Mass. 460 (1904). 5, 103, 107, 113 175, 531 Worcester v. Western Railroad Corporation, 4 Met. 564 (1842) 118, 218, 676 193, 516, 531 Worcester Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. Worcester, 7 Cush. 600 (1851) .. 525 Workman v. Worcester, 118 Mass. 168 (1875) 125, 688 Wright v. Boston, 9 Cush. 223 (1852) 126, 404, 687, 689, 709 Wright v. Central of Georgia R. R. Co., 236 U. S. 674 (1915) 225 26, 28 26, 28 Wright v. Louisville etc. R. R. Co., 195 U. S. 219 (1904) 753 56, 76 Wright v. Louisville etc. R. R. Co., 236 U. S. 687 (1915) Wyeth v. Cambridge Board of Health, 200 Mass. 474 (1909) 16 Yazoo etc. R. R. Co. v. Adams, 180 U. S. 1 (1901) 29 Young Men's Protestant etc. Society v. Fall River, 160 Mass. 409 (1894) 199, 204 Zonne v. Minneapolis Syndicate, 220 U. S. 187 (1911) 14, 550 NATURE AND CHARACTERISTICS OF TAXATION 1. The Power of Taxation Defined THE power of taxation may be defined as the power of a sovereign state to require a contribution of money or other property in accordance with some reasonable rule of apportionment from persons or property within its jurisdiction for the purpose of defraying the public expenses. Included in the absolute authority of a sovereign state over persons and property within its jurisdiction is the power to raise revenue from such persons or property by whatever means seems best, to be expended in whatever way seems desirable, without any other limit than the extent of its physical power to exact payment or any other check than the fear of rebellion in a despotism or defeat at the polls in an elective government. In a modern civilized community, however, even in the absence of a written constitution, the raising of revenue by the sovereign must have risen above a system of indiscriminate plunder and extortion to be dignified by the name of taxation. A method of raising revenue, to constitute a tax, must consist of an enforced contribution of money or other property assessed in accordance with some reasonable rule of apportionment2 by authority of a sovereign state,3 on persons or property within its jurisdiction for the purpose of defraying the public expenses.5 4 1 2. Taxes Distinguished from other Pecuniary Impositions In England and other countries in which the power of the government is not limited by a written constitution, the power 1 New Jersey v. Anderson, 203 U. S. 483 (1906); Houck v. Little River Drainage District, 239 U. S. 254 (1915). 2 Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. 157 U. S. 429 (1895); Houck v. Little River Drainage District, 239 U. S. 254 (1915). 3 Morgan's Louisiana, etc. R. R. etc. Co. v. Louisiana Board of Health, 118 U. S. 455 (1886). 4 State Tax on Foreign Held Bonds, 15 Wall. 300 (1872); New Jersey v. Anderson, 203 U. S. 483 (1906). 5 Loan Association v. Topeka, 20 Wall. 655 (1874): Morgan's Louisiana etc. R. R. etc. Co. v. Louisiana Board of Health, 118 U. S. 455 (1886); Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U. S. 429 (1895); New Jersey v. Anderson, 203 U. S. 483 (1906); Houck v. Little River Drainage District, 239 U. S. 254 (1915); Lowell v. Boston, 111 Mass. 154 (1873). 3 of the legislative branch of the government to levy taxes is absolute; but in the United States the power of taxation, like other governmental powers, is limited by the provisions of the constitution. As the power of taxation is subject to different constitutional limitations from those which apply to other governmental powers and not all pecuniary impositions enforced by the state constitute an exercise of the power of taxation, to comprehend the constitutional limitations resting upon the power of taxation it is necessary to clearly understand the distinction between taxes and other pecuniary impositions enforced by the state. So also the distinction between taxes and other pecuniary impositions is often important in construing contracts in which one party has agreed to pay the taxes on certain property or on a certain occupation. Nevertheless, while the classification of pecuniary impositions is important, it is not controlling. When the question at issue is whether a state statute contravenes rights secured by the constitution, the decision must depend not upon any mere question of form, construction or definition, but upon the practical operation and effect of the burden imposed. A state cannot make an act unconstitutional by misdescribing its character, nor can it justify an unconstitutional interference with property by calling it a tax of a kind which the state may lawfully impose.3 3. Tax Distinguished from Sale of a Commodity A tax should be carefully distinguished from the income derived from the sale of a commodity or from fees charged for the use of public property. A state or one of its subdivisions, such as a county, city or town, frequently raises revenue or at least defrays the expense of one of its undertakings by selling to the public or to its own inhabitants a commercial commodity, either as a matter of general convenience and to supply a demand which cannot readily be met by individual enterprise, or 1 St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. v. Arkansas, 235 U. S. 350, 362 (1914); Mountain Timber Co. v. Washington, 243 U. S. 219, 237 (1917); Crew Levick Co. v. Pennsylvania, 245 U. S. 292, 294 (1917); American Mfg. Co. v. St. Louis, 250 U. S. 459, 463 (1919); Shaffer v. Carter, 252 U. S. 37, 55 (1920); Massachusetts General Hospital v. Belmont. Mass. (1921). 2 Wagner v. Covington, 251 U. S. 95 (1919); Eaton, Crane & Pike Co. v. Commonwealth, 237 Mass. 523 (1921). 3 Askren v. Continental Oil Co.. 252 U. S. 444 (1920); Commonwealth v People's Savings Bank, 5 Allen 428, 432 (1862). |