_ Brown _v._ Baskin, 78
F. Supp. 933, 940 (1948) which held violative of the Fifteenth Amendment
a requirement of a South Carolina political party, which excluded
Negroes from membership, that white as well as Negro qualified voters,
as a prerequisite for voting in its primary, take an oath that they will
support separation of the races.

[12] Williams _v._ Mississippi, 170 U.S. 213, 220 (1898).

[13] Davis _v._ Schnell, 81 F. Supp. 872, 878, 880 (1949); affirmed, 336
U.S. 933 (1949).

[14] United States _v._ Amsden, 6 F. 819 (1881).

[15] 16 Stat. 140.

[16] United States _v._. Reese, 92 U.S. 214, 218 (1876).

[17] James _v._ Bowman, 190 U.S. 127, 136 (1903) _See also_ Karem _v._
United States, 121 F. 250, 259 (1903).

AMENDMENT 16

INCOME TAX

Page
History and purpose of the amendment 1191
Meaning of income as distinguished from capital 1192
Corporate dividends: when taxable as income 1193
The "stock dividends case" 1193
Other corporate earnings or receipts: when taxable as income 1196
Gains in the form of real estate: when taxable as income 1197
Gains in the form of bequests: when taxable as income 1198
Diminution of loss: not income 1198
Dates applicable in computation of taxable gains 1199
Deductions: exemptions, etc. 1200
Illegal gains as income 1201

INCOME TAX

Amendment 16

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from
whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States,
and without regard to any census or enumeration.

History and Purpose of the Amendment

The ratification of this amendment was the direct consequence of the
decision in 1895[1] whereby the attempt of Congress the previous year to
tax incomes uniformly throughout the United States[2] was held by a
divided court to be unconstitutional. A tax on incomes derived from
property,[3] the Court declared, was a "direct tax" which Congress under
the terms of article I, section 2, clause 3, and section 9, clause 4,
could impose only by the rule of apportionment according to population;
although scarcely fifteen years prior the Justices had unanimously
sustained[4] the collectio