<Dl> <Dd> Nothing could serve to make this clearer than to recall that in the Pollock Case, in so far as the law taxed incomes from other classes of property than real estate and invested personal property, that is, income from' professions, trades, employments, or vocations', its validity was recognized; indeed, it was expressly declared (in Pollock) that no dispute was made upon that subject, and attention was called to the fact that taxes on such income (from employment, etc .) had been sustained as excise taxes in the past . Id . p. 635 . The whole law was, however, declared unconstitutional on the ground that to permit it (the law) to thus operate would relieve real estate and invested personal property from taxation and' would leave the burden of the tax to be borne by professions, trades, employments, or vacations; and in that way what was intended as a tax on capital would remain, in substance, a tax on occupations and labor' (id . p. 637), - a result which, it was held, could not have been contemplated by Congress . (bolding and bracketed language added by Famspear) </Dd> </Dl> <Dd> Nothing could serve to make this clearer than to recall that in the Pollock Case, in so far as the law taxed incomes from other classes of property than real estate and invested personal property, that is, income from' professions, trades, employments, or vocations', its validity was recognized; indeed, it was expressly declared (in Pollock) that no dispute was made upon that subject, and attention was called to the fact that taxes on such income (from employment, etc .) had been sustained as excise taxes in the past . Id . p. 635 . The whole law was, however, declared unconstitutional on the ground that to permit it (the law) to thus operate would relieve real estate and invested personal property from taxation and' would leave the burden of the tax to be borne by professions, trades, employments, or vacations; and in that way what was intended as a tax on capital would remain, in substance, a tax on occupations and labor' (id . p. 637), - a result which, it was held, could not have been contemplated by Congress . (bolding and bracketed language added by Famspear) </Dd> <P> In other words, the Brushaber court is pointing out that in Pollock, the reason the entire 1894 statute was thrown out by the Pollock court was NOT that the Pollock court considered taxes on income from employment to be "direct in substance" (the direct in substance holding applied in Pollock to taxes on income from property, not on income from employment). The reason the Pollock court threw out the entire statute was that the court saw that Congress had not intended to write a statute that would tax incomes from employment, labor, occupations, etc., without also taxing incomes from property . </P> <P> Again, Pollock and Brushaber are complex cases with complex, archaic, convoluted legal language--another reason why the Wikipedia policy against original research by Wikipedia editors may be a good idea . Yours, Famspear 20: 50, 19 January 2007 (UTC) </P>

What was the supreme court decision in pollock v. farmers' loan and trust answers.com