unapportioned造句 unapportionedの例文 "unapportioned"是什麼意思
发布网友
发布时间：2023-01-03 03:57
共1个回答
热心网友
时间：2023-11-01 20:15
In " Pollock v . Farmers'Loan & Trust Co . ", the unconstitutionally unapportioned direct taxes.
The Court of Appeals wrote that this " is a classic instance of an unapportioned tax " upon interstate merce.
So, an amendment was proposed, which came into law in 1913 as the 16th Amendment, authorizing an unapportioned ine tax.
The Supreme Court decided that the Act's unapportioned ine taxes on interest, dividends, and rents were effectively direct taxes.
Because the Constitution prohibited a direct tax unless the tax is apportioned, Pollock argued that the unapportioned ine tax should be declared unconstitutional.
In a 5-4 decision on April 8, 1895, the Court ruled that the unapportioned ine tax on ine from land was unconstitutional.
Soon after Western Live Stock, the Court expressly rested the invapdation of an unapportioned gross receipts tax on the ground that it violated the prohibition against multiple taxation:
Even if that were not so, the constitutional problem would remain, namely that Oklahoma is imposing an unapportioned tax on the portion of travel outside the State, just as did New York.
On May 20, 1895, the Court expanded its holding to rule that the unapportioned ine tax on ine from personal property ( such as interest ine and dividend ine ) was also unconstitutional.
The Court then upheld the unapportioned ine tax imposed under the 1864 Act, rejecting Wilpam Springer's argument that the ine tax was a " direct tax " within the meaning of Article I.
It's difficult to see unapportioned in a sentence. 用 unapportioned 造句挺难的
Shortly after, in 1916, the U . S . Supreme Court ruled in " Brushaber v . Union Pacific Railroad " that under the Sixteenth Amendment ine taxes were constitutional even though unapportioned , just as the amendment had provided.
As of late July 2006, Aaron Russo's biography on his website for the film stated : " The film is an expos?of the Internal Revenue Service, and proves conclusively there is no law requiring an American citizen to pay a direct unapportioned Tax on their labor ."
The Court of Appeals understood its holding to be pelled by our decision in Central Greyhound Lines, Inc . v . Mealey, 334 U . S . 653 ( 1948 ), which held unconstitutional an unapportioned state tax on the gross receipts ( footnote 3 ) of a pany that sold tickets for interstate bus travel.
The Court of Appeals rejected the Commission's position that the sale of a bus ticket is a wholly local transaction justifying a sales tax on the ticket's full value in the State where it is sold, reasoning that such a tax is indistinguishable from the unapportioned tax on gross receipts from interstate travel struck down in Central Greyhound . 15 F . 3d, at 92-93.
Rejecting the Commission's position that a bus ticket sale is a wholly local transaction justifying a State's sales tax on the ticket's full value, the court reasoned that such a tax is indistinguishable from New York's unapportioned tax on an interstate buspne's gross receipts struck down by this Court in Central Greyhound Lines, Inc . v . Mealey, 334 U . S . 653.
They also must have known that a trial would expose the ongoing conspiracy beeen OMB and IRS to pubpsh 1040 forms each year that those agencies knew were in violation of the PRA . That would raise the issue that the Form 1040, with its invapd control number, is being used by the Government to cover up the underlying constitutional tort-- that is, the enforcement of a direct, unapportioned tax on the labor of every working man, women and child in America . }}
Justice Frankfurter wrote for the Central Greyhound Court that " it is interstate merce which the State is seeking to reach, " id ., at 661; that the " real question ( is ) whether what the State is exacting is a constitutionally fair demand . . . for that aspect of the interstate merce to which the State bears a special relation, " ibid .; and that by " its very nature an unapportioned gross receipts tax makes interstate transportation bear more than ` a fair share of the cost of the local government whose protection it enjoys, "'id ., at 663 ( quoting Freeman v . Hewit, 329 U . S . 249, 253 ( 1946 ) ).
In departing from prior law and from the practice in every other state, the 1998 Rule allows for the following : unapportioned offers of judgment may be served to multiple parties under pmited circumstances; any unrelated parties may serve an unapportioned offer to any party; a party may draft an offer for a lump sum or for an amount that includes any bination of costs, attorneys'fees and interest; a party may draft an offer that apportions the offered amounts by claim; a party ( or multiple parties ) may serve an apportioned offer to multiple parties that includes a condition that it be accepted by all parties; and a party may proceed to trial but shield itself from offer of judgment penalties by " accepting " an apportioned offer of judgment that is conditioned by the acceptance of all parties where all parties do not accept.
In departing from prior law and from the practice in every other state, the 1998 Rule allows for the following : unapportioned offers of judgment may be served to multiple parties under pmited circumstances; any unrelated parties may serve an unapportioned offer to any party; a party may draft an offer for a lump sum or for an amount that includes any bination of costs, attorneys'fees and interest; a party may draft an offer that apportions the offered amounts by claim; a party ( or multiple parties ) may serve an apportioned offer to multiple parties that includes a condition that it be accepted by all parties; and a party may proceed to trial but shield itself from offer of judgment penalties by " accepting " an apportioned offer of judgment that is conditioned by the acceptance of all parties where all parties do not accept.
