<P> It is not necessary to uphold the validity of the tax imposed by the United States that the tax itself bear an accurate label . Indeed, the tax upon the distillation of spirits, imposed very early by federal authority, now reads and has read in terms of a tax upon the spirits themselves, yet the validity of this imposition has been upheld for a very great many years . </P> <P> It could well be argued that the tax involved here (an income tax) is an "excise tax" based upon the receipt of money by the taxpayer . It certainly is not a tax on property and it certainly is not a capitation tax; therefore, it need not be apportioned . We do not think it profitable, however, to make the label as precise as that required under the Food and Drug Act . Congress has the power to impose taxes generally, and if the particular imposition does not run afoul of any constitutional restrictions then the tax is lawful, call it what you will . </P> <P> On December 22, 2006, a three - judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated its unanimous decision (of August 2006) in Murphy v. Internal Revenue Service and United States . In an unrelated matter, the court had also granted the government's motion to dismiss Murphy's suit against the Internal Revenue Service . Under federal sovereign immunity, a taxpayer may sue the federal government, but not a government agency, officer, or employee (with some exceptions). The Court ruled: </P> <P> Insofar as the Congress has waived sovereign immunity with respect to suits for tax refunds under 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (a) (1), that provision specifically contemplates only actions against the "United States". Therefore, we hold the IRS, unlike the United States, may not be sued eo nomine in this case . </P>

How does an amendment become part of the united states constitution