Constitutionality of income tax

rantie

Can someone tell me where in the Constitution of Ireland it is stated that a citizen has to pay income tax? I mean, where in law is the origin of the duty to pay?

destroyer

rantie wrote: »

Can someone tell me where in the Constitution of Ireland it is stated that a citizen has to pay income/motor/vat/corporation/vrt/stamp duty/inheritance tax/health levy/ income levy/ prsi? I mean, where in law is the origin of the duty to pay?

FYP

sceptre

Is this prompted by that group of completely sane folks in the US who reckon that their constitution prohibits federal taxation?

It's enshrined in finance bills that have been passed since the state was founded. The Oireachtas has the sole power to pass laws in the state, as stated in article 15 of the little blue book. Taxation is covered under money bills, which are mentioned in articles 21 and 22. The right to impose an income tax came about as a result of Magna Carta in 1215. The first progressive income tax, with schedules similar to today's, was imposed in December 1798. These rights passed under the purview of the Irish Free State as a result of the Anglo-Irish Treaty and the constitution of Saorstát Eireann (see articles 35 and 74 of that document) and previouss non-specifically-overturned laws remained in force under the government of Ireland by way of article 50 of the 1937 constitution.

You might have wanted a convenient "the state can levy taxes and citizens have to pay them". They didn't include it because they didn't need to. Mind you they also didn't say "the state must build roads". If all of our laws were included in the constitution, we'd either have little need to ever pass a new one or immense difficulty in getting a new one passed.

nesf

Constitutional Minimalism ftw tbh.

Lockstep

Most likely private property (which encompasses almost every type of economic value) comes in as well, given that the state can delimit private property for the common good.

rantie

Thanks, Sceptre,
Yes, the question was prompted by the American thing. It occurred to me that just because we accept something, it doesn't mean it is true or legal.
I take it you are from a history or legal background. The answer I was looking for might have been worded:
"The right of the Irish State to levy income tax is provided for in the following pieces of legislation....."
I guess what you are saying is another way of phrasing this.
ATB
Rantie

Victor

rantie wrote: »

The answer I was looking for might have been worded:
"The right of the Irish State to levy income tax is provided for in the following pieces of legislation....."

But if it was so tightly worder, the Oireachtas would have very little lee-way to amend things. Its ignorant of how constitutional and statutory law works.

Alternatively the answer is: "The right of the Irish State to levy income tax is provided for in the following pieces of legislation..... money bills" with the main money bills being the Finance Acts.

johnnyskeleton

Victor wrote: »

But if it was so tightly worder, the Oireachtas would have very little lee-way to amend things. Its ignorant of how constitutional and statutory law works.

Alternatively the answer is: "The right of the Irish State to levy income tax is provided for in the following pieces of legislation..... money bills" with the main money bills being the Fianance Acts.

The Taxes Consolidation Act, 1997 (running to several hundred pages) is a good place to start, But I suppose the sections in the 1070 region are the best, as they make it a criminal offence not to pay tax and other taxation duties, e.g. s. 1078.

The Taxes Consolidation Act, 1997 has the benefit of the presumption of constitutionality.

rantie

What does "presumption of constitutionality" mean? I can presume anything as a basis for anything else; it doesn't mean that it is correct or even that the thing presumed is a valid postulate.
Curiouser and curiouser...
ATB
Rantie

NewDubliner

rantie wrote: »

What does "presumption of constitutionality" mean? I can presume anything as a basis for anything else; it doesn't mean that it is correct or even that the thing presumed is a valid postulate.
Curiouser and curiouser...
ATB
Rantie

All you need to know is that the constitution allows the government to pass laws that impose taxes and you have to obey laws.

Have you read the constitution?

Sangre

It means that onus on proving a law is constitutional lies on the person challenging in and not on the state.

Basically, a promolugated law (signed law) is assumed to be constitutional until another party shows otherwise in court.

rantie

NewDubliner wrote: »

All you need to know is that the constitution allows the government to pass laws that impose taxes and you have to obey laws.

Have you read the constitution?

No, I haven't read the constitution. That is why I am parading my ignorance...
I do, however know that the constitution allows the government to pass laws.
What I am questioning is the existence of a law that says overtly that the citizen will pay whatever tax the government decided on.
R.

oscarBravo

rantie wrote: »

No, I haven't read the constitution. That is why I am parading my ignorance...

If that wasn't irony, then I suggest reading the constitution. It's a short, accessible document.

What I am questioning is the existence of a law that says overtly that the citizen will pay whatever tax the government decided on.

You seem to be conflating the ideas of "constitution" and "law". The constitution is the foundation on which legislation is built; it's the framework within which laws are required to fit.

Think of the constitution as being like a combination of the weighing belt and the wee blue frame thingy at a Ryanair check-in desk. You're allowed to carry on your luggage (pass a law) as long as it (a) fits in the frame, and (b) weighs 10kg or less. If no-one asks you to stick your bag in the frame or on the belt, it's presumed to be acceptable (constitutional).

It's also possible to amend the constitution, so as to change the rules as to what laws can be passed - so now as well as the weight & dimension rules, your baggage can't contain liquids or nail files.

You ask: is it constitutional for the government to pass laws saying we have to pay income tax? I could equally ask: is it acceptable to bring a pink overnight bag onto a Ryanair flight? The answer is that, unless there's a framework that says you can't bring a pink bag onto the plane, then you probably can.

NewDubliner

oscarBravo wrote: »

You ask: is it constitutional for the government to pass laws saying we have to pay income tax? I could equally ask: is it acceptable to bring a pink overnight bag onto a Ryanair flight? The answer is that, unless there's a framework that says you can't bring a pink bag onto the plane, then you probably can.

The difference is that since the imposition of taxes is the most obvious thing you do when you create a state (or you'd have no money to do stuff), our constitution says that the government may pass laws to do just that.

oscarBravo

NewDubliner wrote: »

The difference is that since the imposition of taxes is the most obvious thing you do when you create a state (or you'd have no money to do stuff), our constitution says that the government may pass laws to do just that.

Yup. But it doesn't explicitly state that they can tax income, which is what the OP seems to be querying. The point is that it doesn't say they can't tax income, which in effect means that they can.

rantie

oscarBravo wrote: »

If that wasn't irony, then I suggest reading the constitution. It's a short, accessible document. You seem to be conflating the ideas of "constitution" and "law". The constitution is the foundation on which legislation is built; it's the framework within which laws are required to fit.

No, I understand the difference between the constitution and the law, believe it or not.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Think of the constitution as being like a combination of the weighing belt and the wee blue frame thingy at a Ryanair check-in desk. You're allowed to carry on your luggage (pass a law) as long as it (a) fits in the frame, and (b) weighs 10kg or less. If no-one asks you to stick your bag in the frame or on the belt, it's presumed to be acceptable (constitutional).

Patronising, but clear.

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's also possible to amend the constitution, so as to change the rules as to what laws can be passed - so now as well as the weight & dimension rules, your baggage can't contain liquids or nail files.

Understood

oscarBravo wrote: »

You ask: is it constitutional for the government to pass laws saying we have to pay income tax? I could equally ask: is it acceptable to bring a pink overnight bag onto a Ryanair flight? The answer is that, unless there's a framework that says you can't bring a pink bag onto the plane, then you probably can.

I did not ask if it was constitutional for the government to pass laws saying we have to pay income tax; I asked if a law - specifically stating that income tax was to be paid - was in existence.
What you are saying is that is tax can be levied if there is no provision that it cannot be levied. That's not the same thing.

oscarBravo

rantie wrote: »

I did not ask if it was constitutional for the government to pass laws saying we have to pay income tax; I asked if a law - specifically stating that income tax was to be paid - was in existence.

Re-reading your opening post, I remain confused as to exactly what you're looking for, but try here.

Victor

rantie wrote: »

I asked if a law - specifically stating that income tax was to be paid - was in existence.

I imagine there is. However, they tend to be phrased as "It shall be an offence to not pay" and then goes on to list punishments.

NewDubliner

oscarBravo wrote: »

Re-reading your opening post, I remain confused as to exactly what you're looking for, but try here.

But he should read the Taxes Consolidation Act first, then each Finance Act, not forgetting the statutory instruments.

rantie

oscarBravo wrote: »

Re-reading your opening post, I remain confused as to exactly what you're looking for, but try here.

Ahhh.... thank you Oscar. Question answered.
Regards
Rantie