It has already been recognized that natural persons stand in a
different relation to the state of their choice than does a corpora-
tion. From domiciled individuals a state may with propriety ex-
act tribute from all their gains. No serious question is likely to
arise as to the taxation at the domicil of the recipient of income
from intangibles which are relieved of other burdens. If the prop-
erty is taxable to the owner on the principle of mohilia sequuntur
personam,[1] the income therefrom should receive similar treatment.
But income from extra-state realty and from extra-state business
may conceivably stand on a different footing. A tax on the former
is not likely to raise any question under the commerce clause, even
when the recipient is engaged in interstate commerce. His inter-
state business is not less profitable because he gets less from other
sources. The only complaint against a tax on income from extra-
state realty would be based on the denial of due process of law.
The argument would be that, as the source of the income is beyond
the jurisdiction, the income is also. Pollock v. Farmers^ Loan 6*
Trust Co.[2] would naturally be relied on to support such a con-
tention, but the issue in that case can be distinguished from
that now under consideration. The source of income may deter-
mine whether a tax thereon is a direct or indirect tax within the
meaning of the fourth clause of Article I, section 9, of the federal
Constitution,[3] and still not determine whether there is state juris-
diction within the limitations of the Fourteenth Amendment. An
expression of Mr. Justice Hohnes in the latest case on the taxation
of intangibles to their owner at his domicil has possibilities of
application to the taxation of income:
"The present tax is a tax upon the person, as is shown by the form of the suit, and is imposed, it may be presumed, for the general advan- tages of living within the jurisdiction. These advantages, if the State
- ↑ Kirtland v. Hotchkiss, 100 U. S. 491 (1879), is the leading case. See Charles E. Carpenter, "Jurisdiction over Debts for the Purpose of Administration, Garnishment, and Taxation," 31 Harv. L. Rev. 905, for the most recent review of the authorities.
- ↑ 158 U. S. 601, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 912 (189s). This case held that a tax on the income from land is the same as a tax on the land itself from the standpoint of the question whether the tax is direct or indirect.
- ↑ "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken." This provision is modified, in so far as its application to taxes on income, by the Sixteenth Amendment.
