Is NFA a good example of the highest tax rate ever?

Oleg Volk

Staff Alumnus
I recall reading that sound suppressors sold for $2-5 in 1934, making the $200 tax on them equivalent to 4,000-10,000% tax rate. Can anyone name any other goods or services which were taxed more, ever in the human history? Makes the Moorish taxes on Christians and Jews seems downright tame by comparison...

(Yeah, was off by one zero)
 
Last edited:

tyme

Administrator
I think you stuck extra zeros on those.

Anyway, I bet mailing stamps have taxes on that order (I don't know what they cost to make), but there you're paying for a service.
 

Ceol Mhor

New member
A 4,000-10,000% tax would mean that the tax cost 40 to 100 times as much as the product. In this case, it would mean that a machine gun cost $2-$5 to produce. That sounds low to me, but I'm no expert on 1934 economic history.
 

Justin

New member
I think that Oleg was referring to the tax on suppressors. IIRC, a Thompson back in those days cost something like $250. Even then, that's a really high tax rate. Even moreso if you figure what the cost of an average break-open shotgun was back then, around $8-$10.
 

JoshM75

New member
Tax or Charge

The only higher tax rate I've ever heard of was the Senator Metzembaum [sp?] proposal for a special tax on small calibre ammunition. 1000% per shot or something equally ridiculous.

How can the NFA be a tax anyway, that seems pretty unconstitiutional to me.

I remember reading somewhere that a tax on newsprint ink was deemed illegal as being a violation of the first by SCOTUS. That should supposedly set a standard for the other amendments as well.

If the NFA was deemed a charge for services rendered [dubious as that is] it may be more "acceptable", as it is not for direct revenue purposes.

If charges are based on costs only, then that would be alot lower then $200.

Assuming of course that the BATF doesn't grossly inflate their cost of operating the NFA.
 

swampgator

New member
JoshM75,

How can the NFA be a tax anyway, that seems pretty unconstitiutional to me.



The NFA was first enforced by the Treasury Department, then the BATF, itself a subsidary of the Treasury. NFA is a tax, always has been, always will be.

Oleg,
I suspect you are right about it being the highest tax ever imposed.
 

Monkeyleg

New member
I recall having read that a Thompson was less than $30. That would make sense, since today's average income is nearly 52 times what it was in 1946 (the last year for which I could find data). So, a $30 Thompson would cost $1560 today (if it were not for the 1986 firearms act, which made the prices skyrocket). That's right in the ballpark for a Springfield M1A, which is also machined and milled.

Still, Metzenbaum's tax was the most outrageous. And it wasn't 1000%, it was 10,000%. I think he was engaging in a few theatrics.
 

Dex Sinister

New member
Swampgator said
The NFA was first enforced by the Treasury Department, then the BATF, itself a subsidary of the Treasury. NFA is a tax, always has been, always will be.

You might want to chew on this for a while, before concluding that the NFA is actually a "tax."

Dex }:>=-

Quoted from
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
362 F.2d 624; 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 5879; 66-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P9463; 66-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P9568; 17 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1179; 18 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5293

<snip>
[IRS] Revenue Ruling 57-345, construing a New Mexico statute, defines "tax" as:
"an enforced contribution, exacted pursuant to legislative authority in the exercise of taxing power, and imposed and collected for the purpose of raising revenue to be used for public or governmental purposes, and [*628] not as a payment for some special privilege [**7] granted or service rendered.

Taxes are, therefore, distinguishable from various other contributions and charges imposed for particular purposes under particular powers or functions of the Government. In view of such distinctions, the question whether a particular contribution or charge is to be regarded as a tax depends upon its real nature * * *.

"A charge primarily imposed for the purpose of regulation is not a tax, even though it produces revenue. On this basis, fees paid for dog licenses, automobile inspection, and automobile title registration have been held not to be deductible as taxes * * *. Similarly, amounts paid to purchase hunting and fishing licenses have been held not deductible as taxes * * *. [...]


The Commissioner considered the same question inRevenue Ruling 60-366 which involved the North Carolina primary filing fee. The Ruling notes that:

"an important factor in distinguishing a fee from a tax is the purpose for the imposition of the charge. Clearly, if the only or the primary purpose is the raising of revenue, the charge is a tax, and governmental regulation arising merely as an incident will not alter the character of the exaction * * *. On the other hand, 'if the fee is exacted for the primary purposes of regulating and restraining an occupation or privilege deemed dangerous to the public or to be specially in need of public control, and compliance with certain conditions is required in addition to the payment of the prescribed sum, such fee is a license * * *. A charge imposed as a consideration for a privilege granted one by a governmental unit is not a "tax" in the sense in which the word is ordinarily used.'"

See also IRS Revenue Rule 77-29, 1977-1 C.B. 44; Rev. Rul. 71-49; Rev. Rul. 61- 152; and Rev. Rul 58—151, 1958-1 C.B. 101.

All emphasis mine - Dex
 

Dex Sinister

New member
ATF calls it a tax

Of course they do - otherwise, they'd have to explain (or would have had to in 1934) how a right can be licensed as a privilege.

Just as an interesting side note, there were 0 instances of anyone paying this "tax" in 1934, and only 1 in 1935. Quite a revenue builder, eh?

Dex }:>=-
 

Tamara

Moderator Emeritus
Just as an interesting side note, there were 0 instances of anyone paying this "tax" in 1934, and only 1 in 1935. Quite a revenue builder, eh?

IIRC, the only reason to pay the NFA tax back then was if you planned on transporting the weapon across state lines; it wasn't every day you chucked your Colt Monitor in the Model A and drove 250+ miles...
 

Hal

New member
1934--Right in the gut of the great depression. People weren't buying much of anything. Full auto, suppressed, short barrel shotguns,,,,etc. None had very practical applications to go along with defensive uses. You tend to see things like that go down in sales when the economy gets tough. This chart gives a good indication of just how down 1934 was:
The United States Business Cycle, 1890-1940
Image46.gif
 
Top