Court Cases
The following are court cases relevant to federal income tax. I encourage you to do your own research and check my sources. I’ve linked to the findings of every case.
Flora v. United States, 362 U.S. 145 (1960)
Our system of taxation is based upon voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint (force).
Greyhound Corporation v. United States (1974)
. . . in cases of doubt, a taxing statute must be construed most strongly in favor of the taxpayer and against the government. Tax statutes are not to be extended by implication beyond the clear import of the language used and, in case of doubt, are construed most strongly against the government.in cases of doubt, a taxing statute must be construed most strongly in favor of the taxpayer and against the government. Tax statutes are not to be extended by implication beyond the clear import of the language used and, in case of doubt, are construed most strongly against the government.
Reinecke v. Gardner, 277 U.S. 239 (1928)
The extension of a tax by implication is not favored.
James v. United States, 366 U.S. 213 (1961)
. . . the Sixteenth Amendment "is to be taken as written, and is not to be extended beyond the meaning clearly indicated by the language used."
Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U.S. 41 (1900)
"the power to tax involves the power to destroy."
Helvering v. Edison Bros. Stores, 133 F.2d 575 (8th Cir. 1943)
The Treasury Department cannot, by interpretative regulations, make income of that which is not income within the meaning of the revenue acts of Congress, nor can Congress, without apportionment, tax as income that which is not income within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment.
In numerous cases where the Internal Revenue Service has sought court enforcement of its summons pursuant to statute ( 26 U.S.C. § 7402), courts have held that a taxpayer may refuse production of personal books and records by assertion of his privilege against self-incrimination.
Evans v. Gore, 253 U.S. 245 (1920)
The purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment, as shown by its language and history and by recent decisions of this Court, was not to extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects, but merely to remove all occasion otherwise existing for an apportionment among the states of taxes laid on income, whether derived from one source or another.
United States v. Bishop, 412 U.S. 346 (1973)
The requirement of an offense committed "willfully" is not met, therefore, if a taxpayer has relied in good faith on a prior decision of this Court.
Edwards v. Cuba Railroad Co., 268 U.S. 628 (1925)
The Sixteenth Amendment, like other laws authorizing or imposing taxes, is to be taken as written, and is not to be extended beyond the meaning clearly indicated by the language used.
Home Mutual Insurance Company v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue 639 F.2d 333 (1980)
. . . a tax on income derived from property was the equivalent of a direct tax on the income-producing property itself and therefore must be apportioned in accordance with the above-quoted provisions of Article I.
McCutchin v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (1947)
The 16th Amendment does not authorize the laying of an income tax upon one person for the income derived solely by another.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rulemaking or legislation which would abrogate them.
Grace v. American Central Ins. Co., 109 U.S. 278 (1883)
Because Federal courts are limited in jurisdiction, the presumption is that it is without jurisdiction unless the contrary affirmatively appears.
Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (1991)
A good-faith misunderstanding of the law or a good-faith belief that the defendant was not violating the law prevents a finding that the defendant acted willfully, whether or not the misunderstanding or belief was objectively reasonable.
