Hylton v. United States
3 Dall. 171 (1796)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A tax on articles of consumption, such as carriages, is an indirect tax, not a direct tax within the meaning of the U.S. Constitution. Direct taxes requiring apportionment among the states based on population are limited to capitation (poll) taxes and taxes on land.
Facts:
- On June 5, 1794, the U.S. Congress enacted a law imposing a tax on carriages used for the conveyance of persons.
- The law stipulated that the tax was to be laid uniformly throughout the United States, rather than being apportioned among the states according to the census.
- Daniel Lawrence Hylton owned one hundred and twenty-five carriages for his personal use, not for hire.
- Hylton refused to pay the tax, contending that it was a direct tax and therefore unconstitutional because it was not levied according to the rule of apportionment.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States brought an action against Daniel Lawrence Hylton in the U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Virginia to collect the tax owed on his carriages.
- The parties submitted a stipulated set of facts, agreeing that the sole issue for the court to decide was the constitutionality of the carriage tax act.
- The Circuit Court found in favor of the United States, upholding the law as constitutional.
- Hylton, as the plaintiff in error, appealed the Circuit Court's decision to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the 1794 federal tax on carriages constitute a 'direct tax' that is unconstitutional because it was not apportioned among the states based on population?
Opinions:
Majority - Chase, Justice
No, the tax on carriages is not a direct tax. The Constitution provides two rules for taxation: apportionment for direct taxes and uniformity for duties, imposts, and excises. A tax on carriages cannot be practically or justly apportioned among the states by population, as the number of carriages varies greatly from state to state irrespective of population. This would lead to gross inequality, where a carriage owner in one state might pay a dramatically higher tax than an owner in another. The Constitution only contemplated taxes as 'direct' if they could be reasonably apportioned. Therefore, a tax on carriages is an indirect tax, likely a 'duty,' which need only be uniform.
Majority - Paterson, Justice
No, a tax on carriages is not a direct tax. The Constitution's distinction between direct and indirect taxes, and the rule of apportionment for the former, was a political compromise to protect Southern states from potentially oppressive federal taxes on their two main sources of wealth: land and slaves (counted for capitation). Therefore, the only taxes the framers considered 'direct' were capitation taxes and taxes on land. All other taxes, including those on consumable goods and expenses like carriages, are indirect and must be uniform. The rule of apportionment is 'radically wrong' and difficult to apply, whereas the rule of uniformity is simple, certain, and fair for this type of tax.
Majority - Iredell, Justice
No, this is not a direct tax. The Constitution's requirement that direct taxes must be apportioned implies that a tax is only 'direct' if it can be apportioned. A tax on carriages cannot be apportioned without producing absurd and inequitable results, as a simple mathematical calculation shows that the tax rate per carriage would vary wildly between states. Since the tax cannot be logically apportioned, it cannot be a direct tax. Therefore, it must be a uniform tax, consistent with Congress's authority to tax individuals rather than states.
Majority - Wilson, Justice
No. Justice Wilson, who had previously ruled on the case in the Circuit Court, stated that he agreed with the other justices and that his opinion in favor of the tax's constitutionality had not changed.
Analysis:
Hylton v. United States was one of the first cases to interpret the federal taxing power, establishing a crucial and long-standing precedent that narrowly defined 'direct taxes' as only capitation and land taxes. This interpretation granted Congress broad authority to levy various indirect taxes, such as excises on goods and services, under the much simpler rule of uniformity. This expansive view of federal power was critical for the financial stability of the early republic and remained the controlling precedent for a century, until it was challenged in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. (1895), which ultimately led to the passage of the Sixteenth Amendment.
Unlock the full brief for Hylton v. United States