Pahlman v. The Collector was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a tax imposed by the United States on the sale of distilled spirits was constitutional. The case was brought by a distiller, Pahlman, who argued that the tax was unconstitutional because it was a direct tax and not apportioned among the states according to population. The Supreme Court held that the tax was constitutional, finding that it was an indirect tax and not a direct tax. The Court reasoned that the tax was imposed on the sale of the distilled spirits, not on the distiller, and that the tax was not a direct tax on the distiller's property. The Court also found that the tax was not a direct tax on the distiller's income, as it was not imposed on the distiller's profits. The Court's decision in Pahlman v. The Collector established that the United States could impose taxes on the sale of goods and services, as long as the taxes were not direct taxes on the property or income of the person or entity being taxed. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving the constitutionality of taxes imposed by the United States.

In Pahlman v. The Collector, the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a tax imposed by Congress on distilled spirits was constitutional. The majority opinion held that it was, but Justice Field dissented from this conclusion and argued that the tax violated the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution because it constituted a taking of property without due process or just compensation. He reasoned that since distillers had already paid an excise duty when they purchased their raw materials for production, to then impose another tax on them would be double taxation and thus unconstitutional. Furthermore, he noted that while Congress has broad powers to levy taxes in order to raise revenue for public purposes, those powers are not unlimited and must still comply with other provisions of the Constitution such as due process protections found in the Fifth Amendment.