Pollock V. Farmers Loan And Tax Case Analysis

1535 Words 7 Pages
Register to read the introduction… Farmers’ Loan and Trust Company (1895), that asserted the federal income tax was a direct tax, the law's tax on real property was the equivalent of a property tax, which was a direct tax. Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan and Trust Co. referenced Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution, which states "No capitation or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration." The petitioners maintained that the income tax was not in proportion to the census and therefore it was unconstitutional (Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Co., 1895).

3. The federal statute authorizing the U.S. Secretary of Transportation to make payments to states for the value of materials stockpiled near federal highway construction projects in conformity with the project specifications.

According to the Code of Federal Regulations for which this US Code section provides ruling making authority, the USC › Title 23 › Chapter 1 › § 121. This states, “The Secretary may make payments to a State for costs of construction incurred by the State on a project that have been stockpiled in the vicinity of the construction in conformity to plans and specifications for the projects. The statue also states, costs may be incurred for stockpiles that are not in the vicinity of the construction if the Secretary determines that because of required fabrication at an off-site location the material cannot be stockpiled in such
…show more content…
(2011, July 01). Retrieved from http://foiacouncil.dls.virginia.gov/2011Law.pdf
Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan and Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429 (1895).
USC › title 23 › chapter 1 › § 121 . (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/23/121
Endangered Species Act (1973). The federal register for friday, july 1, 1994 (vol. 59), p. 34271. Retrieved from website: http://training.fws.gov/EC/Resources/ES_Listing_and_Candidate_Assessment/ESA Folder/pol004.htm
Department of professional and occupational regulation. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.dpor.virginia.gov/licensees/ http://library.municode.com/Archive/10122/197943/HTML/10122/level3/CO_CH23OF_ARTIINO.html#CO_CH23OF_ARTIINO_S23-63DEFIPO Frank J. OTTOFARO, et al. v. CITY OF HAMPTON. Record No.020101. January 10, 2003
Stevens, H. (2004). Boyce & isley, pllc v. cooper and the confusion of north carolina libel law. North Carolina Law Review, doi: 82 N.C.L. Rev.

Related Documents