Interesting Case on US Notes

Some of you may have this case. SCOTUS said US Notes not to be used for paying taxes. It's an old case, which ends thusly:

"In whatever light, therefore, we consider this question, whether in the light of the conflict between the legislation of Congress and the taxing power of the states, to which the interpretation, insisted on in behalf of the County of Lane, would give occasion, or in the light of the language of the acts themselves, or in the light of the decisions to which we have referred, we find ourselves brought to the same conclusion, that the clause making the United States notes a legal tender for debts has no reference to taxes imposed by state authority, but relates only to debts in the ordinary sense of the word, arising out of simple contracts or contracts by specialty, which include judgments and recognizances.". (emphasis added) [Footnote 10]

Case is Lane County v, Oregon 74 Wall 71

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/fede...4/71/case.html

Katrina

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Katrina

Some of you may have this case. SCOTUS said US Notes not to be used for paying taxes. It's an old case, which ends thusly:

"In whatever light, therefore, we consider this question, whether in the light of the conflict between the legislation of Congress and the taxing power of the states, to which the interpretation, insisted on in behalf of the County of Lane, would give occasion, or in the light of the language of the acts themselves, or in the light of the decisions to which we have referred, we find ourselves brought to the same conclusion, that the clause making the United States notes a legal tender for debts has no reference to taxes imposed by state authority, but relates only to debts in the ordinary sense of the word, arising out of simple contracts or contracts by specialty, which include judgments and recognizances.". (emphasis added) [Footnote 10]

Case is Lane County v, Oregon 74 Wall 71

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/fede...4/71/case.html

Katrina

---

Thank you Katrina;



Very thought-provoking.

hi, Katrina .. !!

glad You found your way here ...;)

Indeed Katrina! It is a compliment indeed that you have wandered back here.

I read the case carefully and what jumps out in the 1868 Court's distinctions is something I have been speaking about for some while. The diversity of citizenship in the Libel of Review is best described as between those in contract (endorsement) with the Fed and those without a contract with the Fed (redeeming lawful money by demand). Ergo reading in the context of the Court 1913 saw a new kind of taxation on the horizon at the expiration of the twenty-year charter for the Federal Reserve; 1933. People began endorsing a taxation by contract.

The Court case attached, as I read it is basically about the Tenth Amendment. While the Legal Tender Cases ("Act of 1862") compel the United States to accept its own US notes for the payment of any federal taxes (like the "tonnage" (admiralty) described around our remedy, the 'saving to suitors' clause) Congress was still without the power to tell Oregon that it had to accept US notes instead of the legislated gold and silver coin.

Without the context of the 1868 timeline though, I do not think that very significant. Oregon probably changed that law within a few years. However the idea that taxation is different than debts that arise from contracts... that was really worth pondering! The evidence is overwhelming that Forms like the 1040 bind in contract. The act of endorsing private credit causes the irrecusable obligation to file a Return.



Thanks!!

An aside, but important, note from this case...

Notice they refer to "the County of Lane", not "Lane County". Case is from 1868, before the creation of "this state" or federal reserve "districts".

David,
"Without the context of the 1868 timeline though, I do not think that very significant. Oregon probably changed that law within a few years. However the idea that taxation is different than debts that arise from contracts... that was really worth pondering! The evidence is overwhelming that Forms like the 1040 bind in contract. The act of endorsing private credit causes the irrecusable obligation to file a Return."

Whether or not Oregon changed that law or not, I am unable to determine. However, SCOTUS ruled similarly in 1884. As here:
"The acts of Congress making the notes of the United States a legal tender do not apply to involuntary contributions in the nature of taxes or assessments exacted under state laws, but only to debts in the strict sense of the term; that is, to obligations founded on contracts, express or implied, for the payment of money." ---Hagar v. Reclamation District, 111 U.S. 701 " (emphasis added)
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/fede.../701/case.html

Not sure, but I think this is still a "good case." Am I correct that it supports the Oregon ruling. I have heard several times that FRN's cannot be used or are legal tender (?) for taxes. Then I "found" these two cases. I am cogitating on how these rulings might apply to property taxes (what about state sales tax - which I believe is a tax on the retailer for the "privilege" of doing business).

[Is there a way to check the Footnote 10 - Parsons on Contracts? Seems to be the basis for the ruling by the court.]

Katrina