Talk:Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co.
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Case frequently quoted
editA section on quotes from this case could be added.
Quotes from the opinion of this case are found being used in several other aspects of income tax issues.
Notably: "A statute is so vague as to violate the due process clause .... & ...holding of the Pollock court related to income from capital investments, it is submitted the 16th Amendment is irrelevant to an issue of wages/salaries. Agreement is found in Bower v Kerbaugh-Empire, 271 US 170, 174 (1926) and Eisner v Macomber, 252 US 189, 206 (1920). among others 16:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.177.80.36 (talk • contribs)
Dear user at IP 76.177.80.36: I'm not sure what you are driving at here. These quotations are not found in the text of the case of Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire. I'll check Eisner v. Macomber and get back to you. Yours, Famspear (talk) 18:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Dear user at IP 76.177.80.36: OK, the quotations are not from Eisner v. Macomber either. The quotations have been removed from the article. Famspear (talk) 19:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)