Changes

'''A Recent -- But Misleading -- Definition'''

'''A Recent -- But Misleading -- Definition'''

Recently, there has been a concerted effort by the Left to reinterpret an excise as an “event tax” -- that is, a tax levied on an “event” solely by virtue of the fact that an event or transaction has occurred. This definition is without foundation.  The so-called “event” definition was completely unknown to the drafters of the Constitution, and has never been recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States or by any other court.  Were that definition allowed, any “event” could theoretically be taxed as an excise, and the Constitutional distinction between Direct taxes -- requiring apportionment -- and Indirect taxes and excises -- requiring uniformity -- would collapse.   

Recently, there has been a concerted effort by the Left to reinterpret an excise as an “event tax” -- that is, a tax levied on an “event” solely by virtue of the fact that an event or transaction has occurred. This definition is without foundation.  The so-called “event” definition was completely unknown to the drafters of the Constitution, and has never been recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States or by any other court.  Were that definition allowed, any “event” could theoretically be taxed as an excise, and the Constitutional distinction between Direct taxes (requiring apportionment) and Indirect taxes and excises (requiring uniformity) would collapse.   

For example, if the “event” definition of excise were permitted, Congress could attempt to levy a tax on attending church, or issuing a news report, or going to school, because each of these is an “event.”  But the courts would likely rule such a tax unconstitutional because these “events” involve the exercise of unalienable rights, not privileges.

For example, if the “event” definition of excise were permitted, Congress could attempt to levy a tax on attending church, or issuing a news report, or going to school, because each of these is an “event.”  But the courts would likely rule such a tax unconstitutional because these “events” involve the exercise of unalienable rights, not privileges.