U.S. Constitution · Amendment XVI · ratified 1913-02-03

Income Tax

Create a free account or sign in to follow Amendment XVI and get alerts.

Alerts when a new grade, SI Solution or Think Tank idea cites Amend. XVI.

The Sixteenth Amendment gives Congress the power to tax incomes from any source without apportioning the tax among the states or basing it on population.

Live in the VFA record

Cited in 1 VFA SI Solution, 5 grades and 1 SI Think Tank idea this month.

87 public items cite this provision · 7 in October 2026 (last month: 1)

Citations per week, last 12 weeks

The text

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.

National Archives transcription (public domain; original spelling and capitalization). archives.gov

SI explainer

What it means

The Sixteenth Amendment says that Congress can tax people's incomes, no matter where the income comes from, and it does not have to divide the tax among the states according to population. Before this amendment, the Constitution required that certain taxes, called 'direct taxes,' be apportioned among the states based on population. That meant if one state had more people, it would pay a larger share of the tax. This made it hard for the federal government to tax income because income is not evenly distributed among states.

Original meaning

The amendment was proposed in 1909 after the Supreme Court's decision in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. (1895) struck down an income tax law. President Taft, in his message to Congress, said the Court's decision 'deprived the National Government of a power which, by reason of previous decisions of the court, it was generally supposed that Government had.' He argued that the power to tax incomes 'might be indispensable to the nation's life in great crises.' The amendment was designed to restore that power by removing the apportionment requirement for income taxes. The original understanding was that Congress could tax incomes without regard to state population, but the exact definition of 'income' was left to future interpretation.

“The decision of the Supreme Court in the income-tax cases deprived the National Government of a power which, by reason of previous decisions of the court, it was generally supposed that Government had. It is undoubtedly a power the National Government ought to have. It might be indispensable to the nation's life in great crises.” William Howard Taft, William Howard Taft, Message to Congress Concerning Tax on Net Income of Corporations, June 16, 1909 (1909-06-16)
“I therefore recommend to the Congress that both Houses, by a two-thirds vote, shall propose an amendment to the Constitution conferring the power to levy an income tax upon the National Government without apportionment among the States in proportion to population.” William Howard Taft, William Howard Taft, Message to Congress Concerning Tax on Net Income of Corporations, June 16, 1909 (1909-06-16)

How the Supreme Court has read it

Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 (1895) · superseded in part by the Sixteenth Amendment

The Court held that a tax on income from real estate was a direct tax requiring apportionment, and later extended that to income from personal property, invalidating the 1894 income tax. This decision was superseded in part by the Sixteenth Amendment.
Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)

The Court upheld the 1913 income tax, ruling that the Sixteenth Amendment did not create a new taxing power but simply removed the apportionment requirement for taxes on incomes.
Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920)

The Court held that a pro rata stock dividend was not 'income' under the Sixteenth Amendment and could not be taxed without apportionment.
Moore v. United States, 602 U.S. 572 (2024)

The Court upheld the Mandatory Repatriation Tax, which taxes American shareholders on a foreign corporation's realized and undistributed income, without deciding whether the Sixteenth Amendment requires realization. The majority relied on longstanding practice and precedent, while the dissent argued that 'incomes' requires realization by the taxpayer.

Two schools of interpretation

Originalist / textualist reading

Originalists and textualists focus on the plain meaning of 'incomes' as understood at the time of ratification. They argue that the amendment only removed the apportionment requirement for taxes on income, not that it expanded the definition of income. They often insist that income must be 'realized' by the taxpayer, meaning there must be a transaction or event that produces a gain. This reading is supported by the dissent in Moore v. United States, which argued from the text and original understanding that 'incomes' requires realization. Originalists also emphasize that the amendment did not create a new power but merely clarified the existing power to tax incomes without apportionment.

Living-constitutionalist reading

Living constitutionalists and pragmatists view the Sixteenth Amendment as a flexible grant of power that should adapt to modern economic realities. They argue that the amendment's purpose was to give Congress broad authority to tax income in order to fund the government and address national needs. They tend to read 'income' broadly, allowing Congress to tax economic gains even if not strictly 'realized' in a traditional sense. The majority in Moore v. United States reflected this approach by upholding the Mandatory Repatriation Tax based on longstanding congressional practice and the need to address complex international tax issues. For them, the amendment is not frozen in 1913 but must be applied to today's financial systems.

Open questions

The main unsettled question is whether the Sixteenth Amendment requires 'realization' of income before it can be taxed, as debated in Moore v. United States. The Court in that case did not decide the issue, leaving it open for future cases.

SI-generated explainer · passed automated checks (Constitution citation, every quotation verified word for word against its public-domain source, every case from a verified case record, independent SI critic) · not individually reviewed by a person · published 2026-10-12 · methodology · Report an error: hello@valuesforamerica.com

Cited in the VFA record

“Where this provision is cited”

Showing the 25 most recent. All 78: JSON.

Roll-call votes are listed when the measure voted on has a current Constitution Index grade citing this provision. Counts include only published items.

Cite this page

Values for America Constitution Explorer, https://www.valuesforamerica.com/constitution (text: National Archives transcription, public domain), Amendment XVI, https://www.valuesforamerica.com/constitution/amendment-16

Data: this provision as JSON.

What it means

Original meaning

How the Supreme Court has read it

Two schools of interpretation

Open questions

“Where this provision is cited”

SI Solutions (3)

grades (5)

Think Tank ideas (1)

roll-call votes (78)

Cite this page