Our Changing Constitution

by Charles W. Pierson

IX

CAN CONGRESS TAX THE INCOME FROM STATE AND MUNICIPAL BONDS?

That is a question which is agitating a good many people just now. Congress from time to time has seemed disposed to try it, in spite of misgivings as to the constitutionality of such legislation.[1] A recent Revenue Bill contained provisions taxing the income of future issues of such obligations, and a motion for the elimination of those provisions was defeated in the House 132 to 61. Meanwhile, protests were pouring in from state and municipal officers assailing the justice and expediency of such a tax.

[Footnote 1: See, e.g., H. Report No. 767, 65th Cong., 2d Sess., accompanying House Revenue Bill of 1918 as reported by Mr. Kitchin from the Committee on Ways and Means, page 89.]

It is not the purpose of this chapter to discuss the questions of justice and expediency (as to which there is much to be said on both sides) but rather to deal with the strictly legal aspects of the matter and indicate briefly why such a tax cannot be laid without a change in our fundamental law.

Let it be said at the outset that no express provision of the United States Constitution forbids. On the contrary, that instrument confers on Congress the power to lay taxes without any restriction or limitation save that exports shall not be taxed, that duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States, and that direct taxes must be apportioned among the states in proportion to population. The obstacle lies rather in an implied limitation inherent in our dual system of government and formulated in decisions of the Supreme Court.

The founders of this republic established a form of government wherein the states, though subordinate to the Federal Government in all matters within its jurisdiction, nevertheless remained distinct bodies politic, each one supreme in its own sphere. In the famous phrase of Salmon P. Chase, pronouncing judgment as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court[1]:

The Constitution in all its provisions looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible states.

[Footnote 1: Texas v. White, 7 Wall., 700, 725.]

In a later case[1] another eminent justice (Samuel Nelson of New York) put the matter thus:

The General Government, and the states, although both exist within the same territorial limits, are separate and distinct sovereignties, acting separately and independently of each other, within their respective spheres. The former, in its appropriate sphere, is supreme; but the states within the limits of their powers not granted, or, in the language of the 10th Amendment, "reserved", are as independent of the General Government as that government within its sphere is independent of the states.

[Footnote 1: The Collector v. Day, 11 Wall., 113, 124.]

It follows that the two governments, national and state, must each exercise its powers so as not to interfere with the free and full exercise by the other of its powers. To do otherwise would be contrary to the fundamental compact embodied in the Constitution—in other words, it would be unconstitutional.

This proposition was affirmed at an early day by Chief Justice John Marshall in the great case of McCulloch vs. The State of Maryland,[1] which involved the attempt of a state to tax the operations of a national bank. That case is one of the landmarks of American constitutional law. While it did not expressly decide that the Federal Government could not tax a state instrumentality but only the converse, i.e., that a state could not tax an instrumentality of the nation, the Court has held in many subsequent decisions that the proposition enunciated by the great Chief Justice works both ways. For example, it has declared that a state cannot tax the obligations of the United States because such a tax operates upon the power of the Federal Government to borrow money[2] and conversely, that Congress cannot tax the obligations of a state for the same reason;[3] that a state cannot tax the emoluments of an official of the United States[4] and conversely, that the United States cannot tax the salary of a state official;[5] that a state cannot impose a tax on the property or revenues of the United States[6] and conversely, that Congress cannot tax the property or revenues of a state or a municipality thereof.[7]

[Footnote 1: 4 Wheaton, 316.]

[Footnote 2: Weston v. City of Charleston, 2 Pet., 449.]

[Footnote 3: Mercantile Bank v. New York, 121 U.S., 138, 162.]

[Footnote 4: Dobbins v. Commissioner of Erie County, 16 Pet., 435.]

[Footnote 5: Collector v. Day, 11 Wall., 113.]

[Footnote 6: Van Brocklin v. Tennessee, 117 U.S., 151.]

[Footnote 7: United States v. Railroad Co., 17 Wall., 322.]

The Supreme Court has said (and many times reiterated in substance) that the National Government "cannot exercise its power of taxation so as to destroy the state governments, or embarrass their lawful action."[1] One of the most distinguished writers on American Constitutional law (Thomas M. Cooley, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Michigan and afterward Chairman of the federal Interstate Commerce Commission) has said:

There is nothing in the Constitution which can be made to admit of any interference by Congress with the secure existence of any state authority within its lawful bounds. And any such interference by the indirect means of taxation is quite as much beyond the power of the national legislature as if the interference were direct and extreme.[2]

[Footnote 1: Railroad Co. v. Peniston, 18 Wall., 5, 30.]

[Footnote 2: Cooley's Constitutional Limitations, 7th Ed., 684.]

The question as to the right of Congress to levy an income tax on municipal securities came up squarely in the famous Income Tax Cases[1] involving the constitutionality of the Income Tax Law of 1804. While the Supreme Court was sharply divided as to the constitutionality of other features of the law, it was unanimous as to the lack of authority in the United States to tax the interest on municipal bonds.

[Footnote 1: Pollock v. Farmers Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S., 429; same case on rehearing, 158 U.S., 601.]

The decision in those cases is the law to-day (except in so far as it has been changed by the recent Sixteenth Amendment) with one possible limitation. It has been held that state agencies and instrumentalities, in order to be exempt from national taxation, must be of a strictly governmental character; the exemption does not extend to agencies and instrumentalities used by the state in carrying on an ordinary private business. This was decided in the South Carolina Dispensary case.[1] The State of South Carolina had taken over the business of selling liquor and the case involved a federal tax upon such business. The Court, while reaffirming the general doctrine, nevertheless upheld the tax on the ground that the business was not of a strictly governmental character. This decision suggests the possibility that if an attempt were made to tax state and municipal bonds the Court might draw a distinction based on the purpose for which the bonds were issued, and hold that only such as were issued for strictly governmental purposes were exempt.

[Footnote 1: South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S., 437, decided in 1905.]

It remains to consider the effect of the Sixteenth Amendment.

After the Supreme Court had held the Income Tax Law of 1894 unconstitutional on the ground that it was a direct tax and had not been apportioned among the states in proportion to population the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution was proposed and ratified. This amendment provides that

the Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

When the amendment was submitted to the states for approval some lawyers apprehended that the words "incomes from whatever source derived" might open the door to the taxation by the Government of income from state and municipal bonds. Charles E. Hughes, then Governor of New York, sent a special message to the Legislature opposing ratification of the amendment on this ground.

Other lawyers, notably Senator Elihu Root, took a different view of the scope of the amendment, holding that it would not enlarge the taxing power but merely remove the obstacle found by the Supreme Court to the Income Tax Law of 1894, i.e., the necessity of apportionment among the states in proportion to population. This latter view has now been confirmed by the Supreme Court. In a case involving a tax on income from exports the Court said:[1]

The Sixteenth Amendment … does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects, but merely removes all occasion, which otherwise might exist, for an apportionment among the states of taxes laid on income, whether it be derived from one source or another….

[Footnote 1: Peck v. Lowe, 247 U.S., 165.]

In a case decided a little earlier[1] the Court, speaking through Chief
Justice White, had said:

By the previous ruling (i.e., in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railway Co., 240 U.S., 1) it was settled that the provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation….

[Footnote 1: Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S., 103, 112.]

From what has been said it will be evident that the doctrine of exemption of state and municipal bonds from federal taxation is firmly embedded in our law and has not been affected by the Sixteenth Amendment.

Whether it is a doctrine suited to present-day conditions is a question outside the scope of this paper.

The fear of federal encroachment, so strong in the minds of the makers of our Constitution, has become little more than a tradition. To many it doubtless will seem that any rule of law which operates to prevent the nation, in the great exigency of war, from taxing a portion of the property of its citizens is pernicious and should be changed.

If this be the view of a sufficient number the change can and will be made. Lawyers think, however, that it will have to be done by the orderly method of constitutional amendment, not by passing taxing statutes which a reluctant Court will be obliged to declare unconstitutional.

Just now the tide of popular sentiment is setting strongly toward such a change. It was advocated in a recent Presidential message.[1] The immunity enjoyed by state bond issues is coming to be regarded less as a safeguard of state rights than as a means whereby the rich escape federal income surtaxes. One is tempted to predict that the next formal amendment of the Constitution will deal with this subject. If so, another inroad will have been made by the General Government on the failing powers of the states.

[Footnote 1: Message of President Harding to Congress, December 6, 1921.]