Also known as: revenues · tax revenue · public revenue
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
Income or receipts received by a government or private entity from taxes, fees, sales, rents, or other sources.
Roland Rhodes, a senator, introduces legislation imposing new excise taxes on imported goods. The bill is referred to a Senate committee for markup. Because the measure raises revenue, the House must originate it under the Constitution, so the Senate version cannot proceed to enactment without House action first.
Renee Rogers declines to purchase health insurance for the year. The IRS collects a monetary exaction from her when she files her return. The amount varies with her income and filing status and is projected to produce substantial government receipts. The exaction functions as a tax for constitutional purposes despite its statutory label.
Rosa Ruiz creates a trust authorizing distributions for a beneficiary's health, education, support, or maintenance. The trustee applies the ascertainable standard drawn from the Internal Revenue Code provisions referenced in the uniform trust statute to determine the permissible scope of payments without triggering adverse tax consequences.
Rhea Reynolds imports a shipment of goods subject to a federal duty. The statute caps the duty at ten dollars per person for the migration or importation of persons, preventing Congress from imposing higher charges before the constitutional deadline passes.
Ruby Rivera applies for disability benefits financed by payroll tax revenues. After termination of benefits, she faces foreclosure and repossession, illustrating how the program's revenue stream from employee and employer taxes supports ongoing payments to eligible workers.
George Eldridge was first awarded Social Security disability benefits in June 1968. In March 1972 he received a questionnaire from the state agency charged with monitoring his medical condition. He completed and returned the questionnaire, indicating that his condition had not improved and identifying recent medical sources. The state agency obtained reports from his physician and a psychiatric consultant. After reviewing those reports and other information in his file, the agency sent Eldridge a letter stating that it had made a tentative determination that his disability had ceased in May 1972. The letter included a statement of reasons for the proposed termination and advised Eldridge that he could request time to submit additional information. Eldridge responded in writing, disputing one characterization of his medical condition and asserting that the agency already possessed sufficient evidence of his disability. The state agency then made a final determination that Eldridge had ceased to be disabled in May 1972; the Social Security Administration accepted that determination. In July 1972 Eldridge received written notice that his benefits would terminate after that month and that he could seek reconsideration by the state agency within six months. Instead of requesting reconsideration, Eldridge filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia. He challenged the constitutionality of the Secretary's termination procedures and sought an injunction barring termination of benefits until a pretermination evidentiary hearing was provided, together with immediate reinstatement of benefits. The District Court held that the existing procedures violated the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, ordered the Secretary to provide Eldridge a pretermination hearing, and directed reinstatement of benefits pending that hearing. The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction and heard the case.
View caseRiverfront Developments owns Grand Central Terminal. Statements of revenues and costs prepared for litigation show net operating losses after allocation of expenses, which the court examines to determine whether landmark restrictions deprive the owner of reasonable beneficial use of the property.
In 1965 New York City enacted the Landmarks Preservation Law, which created an eleven-member Landmarks Preservation Commission and authorized it to designate buildings at least thirty years old that possess special historical or aesthetic interest. The law required owners of designated landmarks to obtain Commission approval before altering exterior architectural features and imposed an affirmative duty to keep those features in good repair. In August 1967 the Commission designated Grand Central Terminal a landmark and the city tax block it occupies a landmark site; the Board of Estimate confirmed the designation the following month. Penn Central Transportation Co. and its affiliates owned the Terminal, an eight-story Beaux-Arts structure completed in 1913 that served as the main station for the New York Central and Harlem lines. On January 22, 1968, Penn Central entered a fifty-year renewable lease with UGP Properties, Inc., under which UGP agreed to construct a multistory office building cantilevered above the Terminal and to pay Penn Central at least three million dollars annually after construction. Penn Central and UGP submitted two plans prepared by architect Marcel Breuer: Breuer I, a fifty-five-story tower resting on the Terminal roof, and Breuer II Revised, a fifty-three-story building that would have removed part of the 42d Street facade. After four days of hearings at which over 80 witnesses testified, the Commission denied this application as to both proposals. Penn Central filed suit in New York Supreme Court, Trial Term, seeking a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and damages for a temporary taking. The trial court granted the injunctive and declaratory relief. The Appellate Division reversed, holding that Penn Central had failed to prove deprivation of all reasonable beneficial use. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that the Terminal could still earn a reasonable return and that transferable development rights provided significant compensation. The Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction.
View caseLegislation qualifies when its primary purpose is to raise revenue through taxes, duties, or similar exactions. The constitutional requirement focuses on the bill's character rather than incidental revenue effects.
Supporting sources
A court examines the exaction's operation and effect, including whether it is collected by the IRS, varies with income, and is expected to raise substantial revenue, rather than relying on the label Congress assigns.
Supporting sources
The reference ensures that trust distribution standards for health, education, support, or maintenance align with federal tax provisions that avoid unintended gift or estate tax consequences for the settlor or beneficiaries.
Supporting sources
Congress may impose a tax or duty on importation but cannot exceed ten dollars per person before 1808, after which the migration or importation clause no longer restricts such charges.
Supporting sources
…beneficial use of the property. The Appellate Division held that the evidence appellants introduced at trial—“Statements of Revenues and Costs,” purporting to show a net operating loss for the years 1969 and 1971, which were prepared for the instant litigation—had not satisfied their burden. First, the court…