Thorndike: Moores Lean On 1916 Tax Expert To Argue No Realization Means No Income

Joseph J. Thorndike (Tax Analysts), Tax History: Moores Lean on 1916 Tax Expert to Argue No Realization Means No Income, 181 Tax Notes Fed. 1356 (Nov. 20, 2023):

Apparently, Charles G. Moore and Kathleen F. Moore are in thrall to a certain Columbia University economist from the early 20th century. Edwin R.A. Seligman is a big player in Moore v. United States, No. 22-800 — no small feat for a scholar who’s been moldering in a Brooklyn cemetery these past 84 years.

Still, Seligman’s prominence in the Moore case is worthy of note, even if Keynes would have found it predictable. The petitioners have cited Seligman repeatedly, using him to support their claim that unrealized income is not really income at all — at least not as far as the 16th Amendment is concerned.

As well they should: The Moores could hardly have asked for a better historical champion. If you’re trying to argue that the original meaning of the 16th Amendment hinges on the concept of realization, then Seligman is your man.

“If it is not realized, there is no income,” Seligman declared in a seminal article on the taxation of stock dividends.

That statement seems pretty definitive, especially coming from America’s leading tax expert of the early 20th century. Indeed, it’s hard to imagine a better statement to buttress the Moores’ principal historical assertion: “Then, as now, income was understood to refer to gains realized by a taxpayer through payment, exchange, or the like, not mere increase in the value of property.”

But here’s the thing: Seligman was not the only tax expert of the early 20th century. He wasn’t even the only tax expert at Columbia. Or the only one trying to sort out the meaning of income in the mid-1910s. There were countless others, including Seligman’s star pupil, Robert Murray Haig.

Haig — who would eventually succeed Seligman as the Columbia University McVickar Professor of Political Economy — was a rising star in the economics profession. And while Seligman was insisting on the centrality of realization to the concept of income, Haig was developing a different, less restrictive definition.

Broadly speaking, the meaning of income was up for grabs at the time the 16th Amendment was drafted and ratified, at least among tax experts. Seligman played an important role in the expert debate over income and its essential qualities. But so did others, including Haig. Over the course of two articles, I will explore the ideas of both these economists on this crucial point.

Prior TaxProf Blog coverage:

• Christopher Cox (Former Rep. (1989-2005) & SEC Chair (2005-2009)) & Hank Adler (Chapman), The Ninth Circuit Upholds A Wealth Tax (Jan. 30, 2023)
• Reuven Avi-Yonah (Michigan), If Moore Is Reversed, 179 Tax Notes Fed. 2215 (June 26, 2023)
• John Brooks (Fordham) & David Gamage (Indiana), Moore v. United States and the Original Meaning of Income (June 27, 2023) (reviewed by Michelle Layser (San Diego) here) (presented at Columbia workshop)
• Daniel Hemel (NYU), The Low And High Stakes Of Moore, 180 Tax Notes Fed. 563 (July 24, 2023) (reviewed by Young Ran (Christine) Kim (Cardozo) here)
• Alex Zhang (Emory), Moore, Eisner v. Macomber, and the Future of Structural Tax Reform, 92 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. __ (2024) (Aug. 29, 2023)
• Thomas Lee (BYU), Lawrence Solum (Virginia), James Cleith Phillips (Chapman) & Jesse Egbert (Northern Arizona), Moore, Corpus Linguistics, And The Original Public Meaning Of The Sixteenth Amendment (Sept. 14, 2023)
• Reuven Avi-Yonah (Michigan), Moore Questions Than Answers, 180 Tax Notes Fed. 2256 (Sept. 25, 2023)
• Christopher Hanna (SMU), Moore, The 16th Amendment, And The Underpinnings Of The TCJA’s Deemed Repatriation Provision (Sept. 28, 2023) (reviewed by Mirit Eyal-Cohen (Alabama) here)
• Joint Committee on Taxation, Tax Code Provisions Implicated In Moore (Oct. 3, 2023)
• Natasha Sarin (Yale), The Supreme Court Tax Case That Could Blow A Hole In The Federal Budget (Oct. 7, 2023)
• John Brooks (Fordham) & David Gamage (Indiana), “From Whatever Source Derived”: The Sixteenth Amendment and Congress’s Income Tax Power (Oct. 9, 2023) (reviewed by David Elkins (Netanya) here and Blaine Saito (Ohio State) here) (presented at Loyola-L.A. workshop and San Diego workshop)
• Steven Rosenthal (Tax Policy Center), Moore Could Invalidate Decades Of Tax Rules, 181 Tax Notes Fed. 285 (Oct. 9, 2023)
• Lawrence Zelenak (Duke), Reading The Taxpayers’ Brief In Moore (Oct. 18, 2023)
• NYU Tax Law Center, Guide To Moore (Oct. 25, 2023)
• Blaine Saito (Ohio State), Review Of  “From Whatever Source Derived”: The Sixteenth Amendment and Congress’s Income Tax Power, by John Brooks (Fordham) & David Gamage (Indiana) (Oct. 27, 2023)
• Tax Prof Amicus Briefs In Moore v. United States, 23 For Government, 1 For Taxpayer (Oct. 31, 2023)
• Steven Calabresi (Northwestern), Moore: Taxes On Wealth And Unrealized Capital Gains Are Unconstitutional (Nov. 1, 2023)
• Michael Graetz (Columbia), To Avoid The Moore Morass, The Court Should DIG It (Dismiss As Improvidently Granted), 181 Tax Notes Fed. 1253 (Nov. 13, 2023)
• Taxpayer's Reply Brief In Moore v. United States, 'Macomber Decided The Question Of Realization, Decided It Correctly, And That Holding Remains Good Law' (Nov. 17, 2023)
• Steven Calabresi (Northwestern), Amar Brothers' Moore Amicus Brief Ignores Constitution's Plain Meaning To Justify Taxing Unrealized Gains (Nov. 25, 2023)