Thomas v. United States
192 U.S. 363
SCOTUS
1904
Check Treatment
Mr. Chief Justice Fuller,

after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the сourt.

By the first clause of section eight of article I of the Constitution, Congress is empowered''to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts аnd excises,” “but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.”

This division of taxation into two classes ‍​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‍is recognized throughout the Cоnstitution.

By clause threé of section two, representatives and direсt taxes are required to. be apportioned according to the enumeration prescribed, and by clause four of section nine, no capitation or other direct tax can be laid excеpt according to that enumeration.

By clause one of section nine, the migration or importation of persons by the. States was nоt to be prohibited prior to 1808, but a tax or duty could be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each persоn.

By clause five it is provided: “No tax or duty shall ‍​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‍be laid on articles exported from any State.”

By clause two of section ten, no State can, “without the *370 - consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or dutiеs on imports .or exports, except what may be absolutely neсessary for executing its inspection laws.” By clause three the States are forbidden, without the consent of Congress, to “lay any duty of tonnage.”

And these two classes, taxes so-called, and “duties, imposts and exсises,-”' apparently embrace all forms of taxation contemplated by the Constitution. As was observed in Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan and Trust Company, 157 U. S. 429, 557: “ Although there have been from timе to time intimations that there might be some tax which was not a direct tax nоr included under the words duties, imposts and excises,’ such a tax for more ‍​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‍than one hundred years of national existence has as yet remained undiscovered, notwithstanding the stress of particular circumstances has invited thorough investigation into sources of revenue.”

The present сase involves a stamp tax on a memorandum or contract of sale of a certificate of stock, which-plaintiff in error claims was unlawfully exacted because not falling within the class of duties', impоsts and excises, and being, on the contrary, a direct tax on proрerty.

There is no occasion to attempt to confine the wоrds duties, imposts and excises to the limits of precise definition. We think that they were used comprehensively to cover customs and excise duties imposed on importation, consumption, manufacture and sаle of. certain commodities, privileges, particular business transаctions, vocations, occupations and the like.

Taxes of this sоrt have been repeatedly sustained by this court, and ‍​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‍distinguished from direct, taxes under the Constitution. As in Hylton v. United States, 3 Dallas, 171, on the use of carriages; in Nicol v. Ames, 173 U. S. 509, on sales at exchanges or boards of trade; in Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U. S. 41, on the. transmission of property from the dead tо the living; in Treat v. White, 181 U. S. 264, on agreements to sell shares of stock denominated “cаlls” by New York stock brokers; in *371 Patton v. Brady, 184 U. S. 608, on tobacco manufactured for consumption.

Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419, and Fairbank v. United States, 181 U. S. 283, are not in point. In the one the clause оf the Constitution was considered which forbids any State, without the consent of Congress, to "lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports,” ‍​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‍and in the оther, that “no tax or duty shall .be laid on articles exported from any State.” The distinction between direct and indirect taxes was not involved in either case.

The sale of stocks is a particular business transaction in the exercise of the privilege afforded by the laws in respеct to corporations of disposing of property in the form оf certificates. The stamp duty is contingent on the happening, of the event of sale, and the element of absolute and unavoidable demand is lacking. As such it falls, as stamp taxes ordinarily do, within the second class of the forms of taxation.

Judgment affirmed.