| Income received is in a mutual account with the United States
Does anyone have any insight into this, and would redemption of FRNs close the account? What if the salary was paid in gold, which was still circulating at the time?
Context:
This is an opinion of the U.S. district court overturning an opinion that the salaries of Article III judges were subject to income tax because it violated Article III Section 1 (The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.)
This is part of the dissenting opinion that the salary of a judge is subject to income tax. Quote: FindLaw | Cases and Codes
I see equally little in the letter of the clause to indicate the intent supposed. The tax on net incomes is a tax on the balance of a mutual account in which there always are some and may be many items on both sides. It seems to me that it cannot be affected by an inquiry into the source from which the items more or less remotely are derived. Obviously there is some point at which the immunity of a judge's salary stops, or to put it in the language of the clause, a point at which it could not be said that his compensation [253 U.S. 245, 266] was diminished by a charge. If he bought a house the fact that a part or the whole of the price had been paid from his compensation as judge would not exempt the house. So if he bought bonds. Yet in such cases the advantages of his salary would be diminished. Even if the house or bonds were bought with other money the same would be true, since the money would not have been free for such an application if he had not used his salary to satisfy other more peremptory needs. At some point, I repeat, money received as salary loses its specific character as such. Money held in trust loses its identity by being mingled with the general funds of the owner. I see no reason why the same should not be true of a salary. But I do not think that the result could be avoided by keeping the salary distinct. I think that the moment the salary is received, whether kept distinct or not, it becomes part of the general income of the owner, and is mingled with the rest, in theory of law, as an item in the mutual account wit the United States. I see no greater reason for exempting the recipients while they still have income as income than when they have invested it in a house or bond.
|
__________________
"We thus require citizens to apprise themselves not only of statutory language but also of legislative history, subsequent judicial construction, and underlying legislative purposes." - People v. Grubb (1965) 63 Cal.2d 614, 620
f-man is not a person qualified to provide legal advice.
Last edited by f-man; 12-16-2009 at 11:10 PM.
| 
12-16-2009, 11:07 PM
Similar Threads 
Linear Mode
