Must the Court Demonstrate the Constitutionality of Its Newly Discovered Tax?
Published
in The Tennessean, Sunday, July 8, 2012 and Forbes with archives.
by
Richard J. Grant
Although the Affordable Care Act contains many new
taxes that will soon come into effect, most recent attention has been focused
on whether or not the individual mandate provision within the act constitutes a
tax.
The Supreme Court has recently ruled, in NFIB v. Sebelius, that what the legislation
calls a “penalty” can be construed for constitutional purposes to be a tax. This
leaves open the question of what kind of tax it is. The closest that the court
came to a clear statement was that it was a tax on “not obtaining health
insurance.” But this appears to tax inactivity, which suggests that it contains
the same defect as the use of Commerce Clause powers to regulate inactivity.
To overcome this objection, the court insists that
“the Constitution does not guarantee that individuals may avoid taxation
through inactivity.” But the first and only example it gives is that of a capitation,
a head tax “that everyone must pay simply for existing.” Congress may impose
such a tax, but it is a direct tax, which means that its revenues must be
proportionate among the states according to population.
Since the first administration, revenue-hungry
governments have attempted to narrow the definition of “direct tax.” But the
current court is incorrect to claim that when the Constitution was written “it
was unclear what else, other than a capitation,” might be a direct tax. The
definition clearly included accumulated property, which is why, when Congress
passed a tax on ownership of carriages, James Madison objected that it was an
unapportioned direct tax. In citing that case, Hylton v. United States, the current court noted that the tax was upheld
by “reasoning that apportioning such a tax would make little sense, because it
would have required taxing carriage owners at dramatically different rates
depending on how many carriages were in their home state.” Rather than accept
this as an example of narrowness or ambiguity of the definition of “direct
tax,” the court should have rejected it as an example of expediency that
subordinated the demands of the Constitution to the desire for revenue.
Perhaps expediency motivated the current court to
reinterpret the individual mandate penalty as a tax. But it skated over what is
being taxed. Imposing a tax for “not obtaining health insurance” implies,
somehow, that having health insurance is the state of nature and that the
taxable action or commodity is its negative.
To tax inactivity and pretend that it’s an
indirect tax makes no more sense than the “regulation of inactivity,” which the
court has now limited. The individual mandate’s penalty might best be described
as a head tax with full exemptions for those who meet the minimum insurance
coverage requirement and full or partial exemptions for those with incomes
below defined levels. Even with the exemptions, the burden of the tax that
remains falls directly on those persons who were the targets of the penalty. It
is also unapportioned.
A head tax is a direct tax. That the court failed
to demonstrate the constitutionality of its newly discovered tax is clearly
recognized by the dissenting justices. They write: “The holding that the
individual mandate is a tax raises a difficult constitutional question (what is
a direct tax?) that the court resolves with inadequate deliberation.”
But if the court is guilty of expediency, the
dissenting justices were too polite.
Richard
J. Grant is a Professor of Finance and Economics at Lipscomb University and a Senior Fellow at the Beacon Center of Tennessee. His column appears on
Sundays.
E-mail messages
received at: rjg@richardjgrant.com
Follow
on Twitter: @RichardJGrant1
Copyright
© Richard J Grant 2012