The deception continues... cover art

The deception continues...

The deception continues...

Listen for free

View show details

This Season's Biggest Deal | $0.99/mo for 3 months + $20 Audible bonus

Auto-renews at $8.99/mo. after 3 months - terms apply.
Summary
 Flint, Macomber, and What Is Actually Being Taxed?It is September 20th, 2026. Welcome to YesToHellWith.com.We have reached a point where one distinction becomes absolutely essential:The subject of a tax is not necessarily the same thing as the measure used to calculate that tax.That may sound technical.It isn’t.It is one of the keys to understanding what happened to federal taxation.Let’s begin with Flint v. Stone Tracy Company, decided by the Supreme Court in 1911—two years before ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment.Congress had enacted the Corporation Tax Act of 1909.The government imposed a tax calculated according to the net income of certain corporations.So was this simply an income tax?No.The Supreme Court identified the tax as an excise upon the privilege of doing business in a corporate capacity.Income was used to determine the amount of that tax.That distinction is enormous.The subject being taxed was corporate activity conducted in a particular legal form.Net income supplied the measure.Those are two different things.Think of it simply.Government may calculate a tax by reference to dollars without the dollars themselves necessarily being the constitutional subject of the tax.Flint therefore gives us an analytical tool that we cannot afford to lose:Identify the subject first. Then identify the measure.Nine years later, the Supreme Court gave us another critical piece of the puzzle.The case was Eisner v. Macomber, decided in 1920.A corporation had issued a stock dividend to a shareholder, essentially representing accumulated corporate earnings through additional shares.Congress attempted to treat that stock dividend as income.The Supreme Court said no.And the Court did something critically important.It refused to accept the government’s characterization merely because Congress had placed something within an income-tax statute.The Court said whether something is actually income must be determined according to “truth and substance”, not merely its form.Then it addressed the meaning of income.The Court described income as gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, including profit obtained through the sale or conversion of capital assets.But the Court went further.A mere increase in the value of property or capital was not itself income. The owner had to actually receive or realize something from that property—a gain or profit that became separate from the underlying capital and available for the owner’s use.There had to be something actually derived from the capital—a gain or profit capable of becoming the taxpayer’s separate property.In Macomber, the shareholder had received additional shares, but the Court concluded that she had received nothing from the corporation’s assets for her separate use and benefit.Her proportional ownership had not changed.Her capital interest remained invested.Congress had called the stock dividend income.The Supreme Court examined the substance and said it wasn’t.That should command our attention.Because Macomber demonstrates something fundamental about constitutional analysis.Congress can define terms in legislation.Congress can create classifications.Congress can establish methods of calculation.But a statutory definition cannot, by itself, determine the constitutional meaning of the power being exercised.There are limits outside the statute.And now put Flint and Macomber beside one another.Flint tells us to distinguish the subject of the tax from its measure.Macomber tells us to distinguish income from the capital or source from which income may arise.These are not minor distinctions.They force us to ask better questions.When government calculates a tax according to income, what exactly is being taxed?Is income itself the subject?Is some activity the subject?Is a privilege the subject?Is property the subject?Or is income merely being used to measure a tax imposed upon something else?And when government calls something income, has an actual gain been derived—or has government simply assigned the word “income” to something it wants to reach?Those questions cannot be answered by pointing to the Internal Revenue Code and saying, “Congress defined it.”That begins the inquiry.It does not necessarily end it.And there is another reason Macomber matters.The Supreme Court expressly recognized that the Constitution itself limits how far the Sixteenth Amendment may be expanded merely through interpretation.That is constitutional discipline.Words have boundaries.Categories have boundaries.Governmental powers have boundaries.Once those boundaries become blurred, the analysis changes.A tax measured by income begins to be spoken of as though income must always be the taxable subject.A gain derived from labor becomes blurred with labor itself.A constitutional category becomes a statutory definition.And eventually people stop asking what is actually being taxed.We do not stop asking.Subject.Measure.Source.Gain.Those ...
No reviews yet
In the spirit of reconciliation, Audible acknowledges the Traditional Custodians of country throughout Australia and their connections to land, sea and community. We pay our respect to their elders past and present and extend that respect to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples today.