About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline



104 N.C. L. Rev. 1 (2025-2026)

handle is hein.journals/nclr104 and id is 1 raw text is: 


104 N.C. L. REV. 1 (2025)


  THE PAST AND FUTURE OF TAXING INCOMES'

                     CLINT   WALLACE & BRET WELLS

   For  at least half a century, the text of the Sixteenth Amendment-Congress
   shall have power  to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever  source
   derived-has   been  treated by  courts, lawmakers, and  scholars as giving
   Congress  broad  authority to define and  tax income, perhaps  without  any
   limitation. Recently, however, some members  of the Supreme Court started to
   revive a seedling planted in the 1920s but left for dead: that the realization
   rule should be elevated to the status of a constitutional limit to Congress's power
   to determine what  is income. With this, we seem to be entering a new era in
   constitutional tax jurisprudence, focused on the meaning of income and limits to
   Congress's power to tax it.

   This Article places realization in broader context, based on a novel investigation
   of the intellectual and functional roots of U.S. federal income taxation, with a
   particular focus on the temporality of income. We find commonality  between
   time-conscious income  tax theory developed by leading economists in the pre-
   ratification era  (some  now   largely forgotten), and  functional concerns
   percolating around  the same  time that we  uncover  in financial accounting
   practices and  tax  administrative guidance.  Temporal   issues are central:
   measuring  income  across time periods is a dynamic and complex undertaking,
   and  theorists and practitioners alike recognized realization as one of many
   possible, partial resolutions. The history we uncover here dispels the notion,
   advanced  recently by some scholars and Supreme Court Justices, that when the
   Sixteenth Amendment was ratified there was a common understanding of
   income  that rested solely on realization. It suggests instead that there was not a
   single meaning of incomes as limited to realized gains, but rather that income
   had  different meanings in different contexts.



     *  © 2025 Clint Wallace & Bret Wells.
     ** Clint Wallace is a Professor of Law at the University of South Carolina Joseph F. Rice School
of Law.
    *** Bret Wells is the John Mixon Chair and Professor of Law at the University of Houston Law
Center. For helpful comments and discussion, we thank Reuven Avi-Yonah, Lad Boyle, Tommy
Crocker, Brian Galle, Christine Kim, as well as participants in the Association of Mid-Career Tax
Professors 2024 workshop, the UC-Irvine Moore Symposium and the National Tax Association 2024
Annual Conference. Thanks to William Raffone and Vanessa McQuinn for research and editing
assistance.