| No search history |
Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Kimball v. The Collector was a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1870. The case involved a dispute between the Collector of Internal Revenue and the petitioner, William Kimball. Kimball was a resident of Massachusetts and had been assessed a tax on his income by the Collector. Kimball argued that the tax was unconstitutional because it was not authorized by the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the tax was constitutional and that the Collector had the authority to assess the tax. The Court reasoned that the Constitution gave Congress the power to lay and collect taxes, and that the tax in question was a valid exercise of that power. The Court also held that the tax was not a direct tax, and therefore did not need to be apportioned among the states. The decision in Kimball v. The Collector established that Congress had the power to impose taxes on income, and that the tax did not need to be apportioned among the states. This decision was an important step in the development of the federal income tax system.
In Kimball v. The Collector, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a tax imposed by Congress on distilled spirits was constitutional. Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in which he argued that Congress had no power under the Constitution to impose such taxes and that it violated both due process and equal protection of law as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. He further argued that since this tax did not fall within any of Congress’ enumerated powers, it could not be justified as an exercise of its implied powers either. In his view, if such taxes were allowed then there would be nothing stopping Congress from imposing other kinds of taxes without limit or restraint; thus leading to tyranny over citizens who have no say in how their money is spent or taxed away from them. Furthermore, he believed that allowing these types of taxation would lead to a situation where “the government may become oppressive beyond endurance” and therefore should not be permitted under any circumstances.