Abstract
The essential nature of a tax for the purposes of the constitutional law of the systems studied here consists in its being a compulsory exaction,1 enforceable by law, imposed under legislative authority, and made for a public purpose,2 the broad objective of which may be stated as being support of the processes of government.3 This does not necessarily connote only support of governmental institutions as such, although these are obviously included. Particular levies may, however, be earmarked for special purposes so that where a particular service provided by government is of both general interest to the community at large and of special interest to a segment of the community, the cost of providing it may be apportioned between the two interests;4 it is sufficient if the levy is paid into a public fund and is thereafter subject to appropriation in the same manner as public moneys generally.5 Thus the exaction should not be wrested from its setting and its governmental purpose ignored. Money may not be demanded from one group solely for the benefit of another;6 but if the exaction has a legitimating governmental objective of regulation, it is of no consequence that its proceeds are distributed amongst a limited segment of the community.7 Determination of the objective of a tax is a question to be decided by the courts.8
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Parton v. Milk Board, 80 Commw. L.R. 229, 258 (1949).
Lawson v. Interior Tree Fruit and Vegetable Committee, [1931] Can. Sup. Ct. 357, 363.
United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 61 (1936).
A.-G. for British Columbia v. Esquimault and Nanaimo Ry. Co., [1950] A.C. 87, 121 (P.C.).
Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548 (1937); Parton v. Milk Board, supra, note 1.
United States v. Butler, supra, note 3; Citizens’ Saving and Loan Assoc, v. Topeka, 20 Wall. 655 (1875).
Lower Mainland Dairy Products Sales Adjustment Committee v. Crystal Dairy Ltd., [1933] A.C. 168, 175 (P.C.).
Milheim v. Moffat Tunnel Improvement District, 262 U.S. 710, 717 (1923); Atlantic Smoke Shops Ltd. v. Conlon, [1943] A.C. 550, 565 (P.C.); Waterhouse v. Deputy Federal Commissioner, 17 Commw. L.R. 665 (1914).
Macallen Co. v. Massachusetts, 279 U.S. 620, 628 (1929).
A.-G. for British Columbia v. Esquimault and Nanaimo Ry. Co., supra, note 4, [1950] A.C. at 115.
Peterswald v. Bartley, 1 Commw. L.R. 497, 509 (1904).
A.-G. for British Columbia v. Kingcome Navigation Co., [1934] A.C. 45, 59 (P.C.).
D’Emden v. Pedder, 1 Commw. L.R. 91 (1904); A.-G. for British Columbia v. A.-G. for Canada (Customs Duty), [1924] A.C. 222 (P.C.).
Woodruff v. Parham, 8 Wall. 123 (1869), Brown v. Houston, 114 U.S. 622 (1885).
These elements are however, fused into one, in Chief Justice Marshall’s judgment in Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419 (1827). Vide supra, Chapter 3, page 26.
Henneford v. Silas Mason Company, 300 U.S. 577, 586 (1937), per Cardozo J.
R. v. Barger, 6 Commw. L.R. 41, 99 (1908).
In re Insurance Act of Canada, [1932] A.C. 41, 52 (P.C.).
Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., 259 U.S. 20, 43 (1922).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1964 Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, Netherlands
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Mackinnon, V.S. (1964). The Definition of Taxation. In: Comparative Federalism. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-8910-1_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-8910-1_6
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-011-8237-9
Online ISBN: 978-94-011-8910-1
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive