Brushaber
Brushaber held the income tax constitutional under the Sixteenth Amendment — not that Frank Brushaber was a nonresident alien
*The Federal Zone* claims that the Supreme Court in Brushaber treated Frank Brushaber as a nonresident alien and limited the income tax to a 'federal zone.' The Court's actual opinion contains neither holding. The case upheld the income tax as constitutional under the Sixteenth Amendment, addressed three constitutional challenges (apportionment, due process, geographical uniformity), and did not specify Brushaber's citizenship beyond a single procedural acknowledgment that 'averments as to citizenship and residence' had been made. The reinterpretation fails at primary source.
Brushaber: What the Case Actually Says
Brushaber v. Union Pacific (1916) is the most-cited and most-misread case in alternate-tax literature. What the Court actually held: the Sixteenth Amendment did not create new taxing power but removed apportionment as a barrier; the income tax is an excise on the receipt of income, valid against direct-tax challenges. What the movement reads into it: an exemption for private-sector wages. Not in the opinion.
Brushaber held the income tax is an excise, not a direct tax
Brushaber v. Union Pacific (1916) characterized the income tax as an excise. This characterization is correct, underappreciated, and load-bearing for understanding what the Sixteenth Amendment did and didn't do.
Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.
Held the post-Sixteenth Amendment income tax is properly characterized as an excise, not a direct tax requiring apportionment.
Excise Tax
A tax on an activity, transaction, or privilege rather than on the ownership of property. The category into which Brushaber placed the federal income tax.