William D. Samson
UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA

THE NINETEENTH CENTURY INCOME TAX IN THE SOUTH

Abstract: In this paper, an author discovers his heritage: the income taxes which evolved in the South of the United States during the nineteenth century. These taxes are of interest because many tax concepts which are now taken for granted were developed during this time. Of particular interest are the common factors and events which led most southern states and the Confederacy to experiment with an income tax. These experiments influenced the structure of the United States federal and state income taxes in the next century.

The United States federal income tax did not emerge suddenly with the passage of the Sixteenth Amendment. Rather, the modern U.S. income tax, adopted in 1913, is the product of long development, experimentation and evolution. The current income tax system can be traced to the faculty tax used by the New England Colonies, to the United Kingdom income tax introduced during the emergency of the Napoleonic Wars, to the federal income tax adopted by the North during the Civil War and to the income tax experiments of several southern states in the nineteenth century. These, in turn, influenced not only public acceptance of the income tax and the passage of the Sixteenth Amendment, but also the form and content of the income tax law and the administration of the re-sulting tax system.

At the time the Sixteenth Amendment was adopted, and the 1913 Tax Act was passed, no part of the United States had had as much experience with the income tax as the South. Almost every southern state utilized the income tax at some time during the second half of the nineteenth century. Three southern states still levied an income tax when the federal income tax was made constitutional. In addition to its use in southern states, the Confederacy developed a “national” income tax during the Civil War. This little remembered tax was apparently more successful, better designed and better administered than its Yankee counterpart. The income tax developed by the Confederacy impacted upon the 1913 Federal In-come Tax Act because the Confederate Income Tax at first taxed net rather than gross income. Again, during the Civil War the citizens of southern states experienced a “double” tax on income— one tax levied by the state and one tax levied by the Confederacy. For many other states, this double tax problem would not occur until a hundred years later.

This paper traces the development of the income tax in the South during the nineteenth century. The income taxes of the southern states and the Confederacy are described. Rather than emphasizing historical detail, the paper focuses on the commonality of the southern income tax experience: the social, economic, political and historical factors that influenced the development of the income tax throughout the South.

The history of the southern income taxes is divided into three eras: the period of experimentation (1840 — 1859), the period of fruition (1860 — 1865) and the period of decline (1866 — 1900). The paper is subdivided into sections which correspond to these eras.

The Period of Experimentation

During the 1830s the United States experienced a great surge of economic activity, partly due to the expansion westward. To support the resulting growth in commerce as well as the westward ex-pansion, a large number of internal infrastructural improvements were undertaken. Roads, canals, bridges, and later, railroads and telegraph were built. While many of these projects were started by private enterprise, they were essentially public, so that when private ventures failed, the states took over the responsibility for their completion.

During this time, states used the federal surplus, then being dis-tributed annually by Congress, for such improvements. However, in 1836 this form of “federal revenue sharing” came to an end because there was no federal surplus that year. To finish the improvements, states raised money by issuing bonds backed by the full faith and credit of the state. The improvements were supposed to generate revenues via tolls and user charges to pay the interest and principal of the state-backed bonds. However, for many of these projects, costs were under estimated and revenues over estimated, with the result that most states were in serious financial difficulty by the 1840s.

With the prospect of state bankruptcy a real threat, the states proposed to tax their citizens in order to avoid default. In the North, a system of property taxes was in place, and taxes on intangible and real property were generally increased to meet the debt burden. In the South, the planter class that dominated the state legislatures of Virginia, North Carolina, Alabama and Florida opposed the use of a property tax as the way of meeting the state debt, because such a tax would be mainly borne by those who owned slaves and land—the planters.2 Instead, these legislatures sought to tax the growing middle class of prosperous town dwellers, merchants, pro-fessionals such as doctors and lawyers, bankers and money lenders, and public employees.

In 1843, Virginia levied three separate taxes that, taken together, were the beginning of the Virginia income tax. These three taxes were (1) a 1% tax on salaries over $400, (2) a 1% tax on professional fees over $400 and (3) a 2/4% tax on interest from securities in excess of $100.4 Because the law exempted ministers, laborers, craftsmen and merchants from the taxes on salaries and professional fees, only a few were actually subject to the tax. Perhaps only state employees and local officials were taxed on salaries, while the tax on professional fees was aimed at doctors, dentists and attorneys. In its crude form, this income tax was little more than a license and occupation tax. The third tax, the tax on interest, ap-peared to be a way for Virginia to recoup some of the interest it was paying its bondholders.

Economic and political events in Alabama resembled those in Virginia, and led to the Alabama income tax. This tax began as a %% tax on certain business income, principally of cotton brokers, dealers and auctioneers. In 1844, Alabama enacted a 1/4% tax on professional incomes and on financial and educational activities. The penalty for refusing to pay the tax was $3,000. The tax on income was broadened in 1848 to include income from crafts, em-ployment (salary) and professions. However, as in Virginia, manual laborers and artisans were exempted from this state tax. Thus the roots of the Alabama income tax were the flat percentage license and occupation tax.

In 1845, Florida levied a tax of 1/5% on income of doctors, lawyers, cotton weighers, public inspectors and boat pilots. The tax was ex-tended in 1850 to all business incomes. Commission merchants and factors were subject to a higher tax rate of two percent.

North Carolina adopted a forerunner to the income tax In 1849. The tax was a three percent tax on interest, trade or dividend income (after a $60 exemption) and a tax on professionals of $3 if the income exceeded $500 per year. Even though it constituted a “tax on salaries and fees,” like the taxes in Virginia and Alabama, it was more of a license and occupation tax than a tax on income in the modern sense.

In each of the four states which experimented with the income tax before 1850, there was a concern with tax equity even at this early stage. For example, in each state there was an exemption from tax for those with low incomes. Furthermore, the concept of taxing “ability to pay” was understood, indicated by the legislatures’ choices of the rising professional, banking and employee classes as the subjects of taxation. In Virginia, North Carolina and Alabama, a distinction was made between “earned” and “non-earned” (interest) income. Consistent with modern concepts of equity, the non-earned income was subject to a tax rate higher than the earned.9 Ominously, the decision to limit the tax to a few groups of the population indicated the political nature of the tax.
The early tax in the four states utilized a flat rate which evolved from the flat fee tax. Perhaps this flat rate development was taken from the customs and duties ad valorem taxes utilized to a great extent to produce the federal revenues of the day; the customs and duties were proportional to the value of goods imported.

After 1850, these taxes moved away from a license and occupation tax and evolved into a more modern income tax. In Virginia, the political power shifted from the large eastern planters to the small Piedmont farmers and changes to the tax followed. The “tax on income” was first mentioned as such in the Constitutional Amendments of 1851 10 The tax became progressive in 1853; the tax rates were as follows:

Income Rate of Tax

$ 0 – $ 200 exempt
$200 – 250 %%
$250 – 625 72%
$625- 1,000 %%
over $1,000 1 %

In North Carolina, the major change to the income tax during the 1850s was a lowering of the rate of tax on interest to 4%. The tax rate on salaries and fees was 1 %, and the base of the tax was broadened to include all individuals.

Florida abolished its tax in 1855 unlike Virginia and North Carolina, which were broadening their taxes.13 Dissatisfaction with the tax was so widespread in Florida that that state avoided reinstating the income tax even during the emergency of the Civil War. Even today, Florida has no individual income tax. and its corporate income tax is a recent development.

The period of experimentation ended in the South on the eve of the Civil War. It should be noted that the two decades old income tax was marked by frequent changes in Virginia, Alabama and North Carolina. While the tax started out as little more than a forerunner of the modern license and occupation tax, it was evolving into a modern income tax. The frequent changes indicated that in each state there was dissatisfaction with the structure of the tax and that the changes were attempts to find a better, more defined base to tax.

During the experimentation period, the income tax did not succeed in generating large amounts of revenue. Virginia, the leading income tax state, collected only $16,000 from the income tax in 1844 out of a total state revenue of $432,000. Of this $16,000, $12,000 was due to the tax on interest. However, Virginia did increase its annual collections from the tax. In 1858, for example, $104,000 of state revenue came from the income tax. North Carolina had less success than Virginia; in 1851 only $30,000 was collected from the tax, and tax revenues actually declined thereafter until the Civil War. Alabama and Florida were even less successful in collecting revenues from the income tax than was North Carolina.

Four major flaws contributed to this lack of success. First, in each of the four states, the administration and enforcement of the tax was left to locally elected county commissioners of revenue, who loathed taxing their neighbors and constituents. The lack of a state-level administration would be a problem which went unresolved until the twentieth century. Secondly, lack of popular support for the tax encouraged tax evasion. Thirdly, the exemption amounts were generally too high to produce any sizeable revenue; a $400 exemption excluded the majority of the population from tax, so that only a few citizens with very large incomes were taxed. Finally, planters and farmers were not subject to the income tax because their income came from land. However, agriculture dominated the economy and relatively little tax could be collected without including agriculture in the tax base. The doctrine of the day was to prevent the double taxation of property and, since property could be subject to both the income tax and the property tax, income from property was excluded from income tax. Neither agri-cultural nor rental income was subject to tax during the early years.

The Period of Fruition

The Civil War years were the period of the South’s greatest reliance upon the income tax during the nineteenth century. The war caught the states militarily and financially unprepared. To raise revenue for the war, the southern states taxed commercial, professional and employment activity with renewed vigor. The income tax base was broadened and tax rates increased in Virginia, North Carolina, and Alabama. States where an income tax had not been attempted before—Georgia, Texas and Louisiana, for example— now resorted to this tax out of financial necessity. But the state was not the only level of government to embrace the income tax; the Confederacy also adopted an income tax for the same reason. Taxing commercial activity was politically attractive in the agrarian society of the nineteenth century South, and taxing booming wartime businesses seemed morally right when many citizens were suffering because of the war. In addition, the war effort depended on finding and paying for military supplies, and this required currency. Besides printing currency, which the South did extensively, and borrowing, dollars to pay for the war could only be found in the commercial sector of the economy, since much of the trade in the agriculture sector was effected by barter.

The income tax was successful in raising money for the states and the Confederacy. In part, this success was due to the popular support that the citizens gave their governments’ war effort. The emergency of war also led to evolutionary developments in the tax which helped to make it raise revenue. Among these developments were, the broadening of the income tax base to include more sources of income, the increases in tax rates and the combining of several independent taxes into one comprehensive income tax. These developments are surprisingly modern, yet they evolved more than one hundred and twenty years ago.
State Income Taxes During the Civil War

Virginia, North Carolina and Alabama modified and expanded their existing income taxes during the war years. Texas, Georgia, Louisiana and Missouri (a border state) utilized the income tax for the first time. In South Carolina, an older form of the income tax the “Colonial” faculty tax—was modified to become a tax on income.

Virginia broadened the existing income tax in 1862, and again in 1863. Of particular note are the “modern” rates imposed by the 1863 tax: 272% on salaries and fees, after subtracting a $3,000 ex-emption; a 17% tax on bond interest and income from bridges and ferries; and a 10% tax on income from licensed trades, businesses and occupations, lending money or from property transactions.15 In 1863, Virginia collected $178,944 from the income tax. This would be the high water mark for the Virginia income tax until the twen-tieth century.

The North Carolina state income tax was modified in 1861 to increase the tax on roads, bridges and ferries to 114%. The next change came in 1863, when an exemption of $1,000 was adopted for taxpayers who had income from salary or fees. In addition, in 1863 the tax on profits was modified by setting up classes of activity and taxing the classes at different rates. The rates of tax ranged from 2% to 20% and the rate structure appears to have been designed to encourage certain activities which would help the war effort, while discouraging other activities which distracted from the war effort, or where speculative “war” profits were being made.17 This use of the tax to influence economic efforts seems surprisingly modern.

The Alabama income tax was broadened in 1862 to include income from most occupations, and the rate of tax was increased to 5%. In addition, a 10% tax was levied on the salaries and wages of men exempt from military service. Alabama also provided the most stringent sanctions against those citizens who would not comply with the tax law: fine, imprisonment or both.

During the Civil War, South Carolina modified its existing faculty tax to turn it into an income tax. The tax was set at one percent and applied to all incomes from “factorage, employment, faculties and professions.” In computing the tax, a $500 exemption was deducted in determining the amount of income subject to the one percent tax.

Georgia instituted its income tax in 1863; this tax was most notable for its strongly progressive rate structure. The tax was levied on business profits and the rate of tax was based on the rate of return on invested capital. The rates were as follows:

Profit as a percent of capital Tax Rate
20% 72%
20%-30% 172%
30% – 40% 2%
40% – 50% 272%
and for every 10% increment that the rate of return
exceeded 50%, the tax rate increased by 72%.

The Georgia income tax was, in essence, a war profits tax with the tax imposed on profits in excess of a “fair” return. The base used to compute the tax was the “profit-to-invested-capital-ratio.” The proceeds of the tax were used for pensions of widows and orphans of Georgia soldiers killed while serving in the Confederate army, and for pensions for wounded Georgia soldiers.21 Less than a year later, the tax rate structure was altered and the sliding scale rates based on profit percentage were abandoned. The new tax rates were based upon the dollar amount of profit exceeding 8% of invested capital. The 1864 rates were as follows:

Amount of Income in excess of 8% of Capital Rate of Tax

0 – $ 10,000
10,000 15,000
15,000 – 20,000
20,000 – 30,000
30,000 – 50,000
50,000 – 75,000
75,000 – 100,000
Above 100,000
5% 7.5% 10%
12.5% 15%
17.5% 20% 25%

To enforce the tax, Georgia tax law provided that persons not com-plying faced a one to five year prison sentence in addition to a doubling of the tax rate. There seems to be some disagreement among historians about the success of this tax. Seligman says the tax was unpopular and unsuccessful in collecting large amounts of revenue,23 and though Kennan cites authority which indicates the tax was a great success, he then casts doubts upon these conclusions.

Louisiana first levied its income tax in 1864, on income from “trade profession or occupation.” The law allowed a $2,000 exemption and assessed income in excess of the exemption at a rate of one quarter of one percent. While the tax law does not appear to have generated much revenue, it is notable for the 20% penalty provision on any underpayment of the tax.

The income tax of Texas was instituted in 1863. Salary income was the primary object, while other sources of income were subject to the license and occupation tax. The rate of tax on salary income was one quarter of one percent of salary in excess of $500.

The Confederate Income Tax Its shortage of revenue was so severe by the spring of 1863 that the Confederate Congress passed a comprehensive “national” tax, in addition to the income tax of the various states. This Confederate tax was levied after the Confederacy failed in an attempt to have states collect and remit a 1% property tax on the value of real estate holdings, of slaves owned and of other personal property.27 This tax act included a variety of taxes, some of which together resemble a modern income tax. The major taxes included an 8% tax on naval stores and agricultural products, a 1% tax on the value of securities and invested capital in businesses and a series of licenses on trades, businesses and occupations, some of which were based on gross receipts. Additionally, a tax on salaries and a tax on income and profits were levied which, if taken together, formed a comprehensive income tax. The tax on salaries exempted those citizens serving in the military and taxed the rest of the popula-tion at a 1% rate on salaries of less than $1,500 and a 2% rate of tax on salaries greater than $2,000. Earners of less than $1,000 in wages were not taxed.

The tax levied on income and profit was imposed on all sources of individuals and corporations other than salary. This income tax on profits and income was revolutionary in that it allowed certain deductions from gross income; it was a tax on net income. Because there was considerable reluctance to allow just any deductions, the Confederate Congress carefully specified six categories based on types of income. These specified deductions were as follows:

(1) for income from real estate—a deduction of not exceeding 10% of gross rents for annual repairs is permitted. In the case of houses, the deduction is limited to 5% of gross rents.

(2) for income from manufacturing and mining—a deduction from the gross value of product is permitted for rent, cost of labor and raw materials.

(3) for income from “navigating enterprises”—deductions are permitted from gross value of freight shipped for a reasonable allowance for “wear and tear” not to exceed 10% per annum and also a deduction for the cost of running the vessel.

(4) for income from boat building—a deduction for the cost of labor and “prime cost of materials” is permitted.

(5) for income from the sale of property—a deduction from the gross sale amount for the prime cost of property sold including transportation as well as salaries of clerks and rent of the building is permitted.

(6) for mutual insurance companies, deductions permitted included amounts paid for losses during the year.

The tax rates on the income and profits were as follows:

Income and Profits Tax Rate
$ 0 – 500 exempt
500 – 1,000 5%
1,500 – 3,000 5% on the first $1,500
10% on the excess over $1,500
3,000 – 5,000 10%
5,000 – 10,000 1272%
over 10,000 15%

In addition to the above taxes, corporations and joint stock com-panies were required to pay a tax based on the amount that profit exceeded a certain percentage of capital. Thus, in structure the tax appears to be a forerunner of the excess profits tax which has been used in modern times to assess companies benefiting from windfalls during war or other emergency situations. The rate of tax was 12/4% if the profit percentage exceeded 10% but was less than 20% of invested capital, and 162/3% if profits exceeded 20% of in-vested capital.

In the 1863 tax act, the Confederacy instituted one more form of income tax: the “in kind” tax. This “in kind” tax was unique, and represented a clever solution to the complex problems facing the South in its attempt to finance the war effort. The “in kind” tax was a 10% tax on goods and produce, and was payable in goods (“in kind”) rather than Confederate dollars. Specifically, it was assessed on the producers of flour, corn, bacon, pork, hay, oats, rice, salt, iron, sugar, molasses, leather, woolen cloth, shoes, boots, blankets and cotton cloth.31 These, of course, were the very items that were needed by the Confederate Army to fight the war. The tax also solved the problems posed by the barter nature of the agrarian economy, and the depreciating currency which forced up the cost of goods for the Confederate government as well as for the citizens, and also caused citizens to prefer to pay tax with Confederate dollars.

It was designed to tax the farmers and planters who were least likely to be subject to the other taxes; in fact the “in kind” tax did not apply to the businesses which were affected by the regular income tax. In addition to those items which were mentioned as assessable by law, there appear to have been some administrative provisions (Confederate Treasury Regulations?) which expanded the list of crops subject to the “in kind” tax to include potatoes, wheat, peas, and beans. The administrative provisions also allowed for an exemption which apparently represented a subsistence amount, so that the tax was levied only upon the excess (disposable) crop. These exemption amounts were fifty bushels of potatoes, one hundred bushels of corn, fifty bushels of wheat, and twenty bushels of peas or beans. The law also provided that the producer was to report to the tax assessor the amount of his goods or crops when they were ready to market; the producer then had two months to deliver the tax to a military depot. If the producer failed to make the delivery, he was assessed an additional 50% of the taxes as a penalty.

In February 1864, the Confederate Congress again met and increased the rates of tax on income by ten percent. Thus the tax for those who had over $10,000 of income was 25%.33 These high rates begin to approach those of the modern income tax.

The Confederate income tax was generally successful in generating revenues. It is estimated that more than $82 million was col-lected from the income taxes.34 This may have been due in part to the citizens viewing the tax as a part of the war effort and thus giving their voluntary support. However, it should also be noted that the Confederacy did set up an administrative system for collecting the tax. For example, taxpayers had to report their incomes annually to the assessor. If the assessor did not believe the report, the assessor and the taxpayer each were able to choose arbitrators; the two arbitrators together decided upon a third, and the majority of arbitrators decided upon the amount of tax.

The Confederate income tax was innovative in taxing net income and in the use of strongly progressive rates. The level of exemption may have been set too high, but the tax was the most successful of all the income taxes of the day in raising revenue. It seems somewhat ironic that the Confederacy would impose a “national” tax; however, this national tax was more successful than the widely avoided federal tax of the Civil War.

In summary, the emergency of the Civil War gave impetus to the development and widespread use of the income tax throughout the South. The need for revenues led to the income tax becoming a broad based tax and the rates of tax reached levels of the modern income tax. The imposition of income taxes at both the state and “national” Confederacy level presented modern problems of “double taxation” of the same tax base. The development of the income tax culminated at this time with the Confederacy taxing net income while the states taxed gross income. The total revenues collected during this period by the states and by the Confederacy were relatively large and it would be many decades before the income tax would be utilized to this extent, by the federal United States government.

The Period of Decline

After the War Between the States (the Civil War), reliance upon the income tax for revenues declined throughout the South. Several states repealed their income tax statutes when the war emergency ended. States which continued to utilize the income tax reduced their tax rates. In addition, those states which continued to keep the income tax on the statute books did not enforce the law; the income tax was thus effectively repealed throughout the South by the turn of the century.

Among the states which repealed the income tax were South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, and Texas. In South Carolina, the decline of the income tax started in 1865 when salaries were exempted, although rent and other income were added to the income tax base in 1866. However, citizen dissatisfaction with the tax led to its abolition there in 1868.

Georgia also experienced citizen protest over the use of the income tax, which was repealed in 1866 and not reinstituted until the twentieth century.37
The tax was slower to die in Alabama. The income tax base was actually broadened in 1866 to a general income tax imposed on total income from all sources. The exemption amount was increased from $500 in 1866 to $1,000 in 1867. The 1866 one percent rate was cut to three-quarters of one percent in 1868. During the 1870s the tax collected from the income tax fell to less than $10,000 per year. Because taxpayer compliance evaporated and citizen protests in-creased, the income tax was abolished in Alabama in 1884.

The Texas income tax was modified in 1866 from separate taxes on salary and on occupation to a general income tax which in-cluded all sources of income including dividend and interest income. The tax rates were progressive, ranging from one to three percent.39 The modified tax worked so poorly that the tax on all income except salary was abolished in 1870 and the tax on salary was abolished the next year.

The state income tax fell into disuse in Virginia, North Carolina and Louisiana. While they maintained their income tax laws into the twentieth century, the amounts of tax revenue declined through-out the reconstruction period because of tax rate decreases and poor administration and compliance.

In Virginia, the income tax was modified and income was taxed according to the source. A system of six classes of income was devised, and rates ranging from 1/4% to 3% were applied to the various classes. In 1870, the income tax was again changed and the system of classes of income repealed. Income from property became subject to the income tax for the first time, thereby broad-ening the income tax base to include rental income and agricul-tural income. Additionally, the tax base was changed from a tax on gross income to a tax on net income through the allowance of deductions for business expenses and losses. After deducting a $1,500 exemption, net income was taxed at 2/4%.41

The income tax was again modified in 1874. This time the exemption was decreased to $600 and the tax rate was decreased to 1%.42 The Virginia income tax statute then remained generally unchanged until after the turn of the century.

In North Carolina, the income tax rate structure was modified in 1866 from a flat rate to a progressive rate structure. The rates ranged from one percent to three and one-half percent. However, this progressive structure was not applied to salary income, which was still subject to a flat rate of tax.43 The rate structure was reduced proportionally in 1867. The state reinstituted a flat rate of two and one-half percent in 1869, and the rate was further reduced to one and one-half percent in 1870. After 1870, the tax remained unchanged until the twentieth century.

Louisiana’s income tax remained intact after the Civil War, and continued virtually unchanged into the twentieth century.

While Virginia, North Carolina and Louisiana maintained their income tax laws, the amounts of revenue collected during the reconstruction years show that the tax was neglected to the point of being effectively repealed. In Virginia, at the end of the nineteenth century, the income tax produced about fifty thousand dollars per year. This was less than one-third of the amount collected in 1863 and only about one and one-half percent of the total state revenue.45 In North Carolina, the income tax fell into almost total disuse. The income tax revenue collected in 1898 was only $3,876, in 1902 only $18.46 Louisiana experienced a similar decline. The total amount of Louisiana income tax collected in 1899 was $104.47 Poor tax administration was the primary reason the tax revenues in Virginia, North Carolina and Louisiana fell so low. Most of the responsibility for tax collection was left to locally elected county commissioners of revenue who generally hated extracting a tax from their neighbors and constituents. This lack of central, state level admin-istration encouraged the lack of compliance in all three states. In Virginia, for example, thirty percent of the counties had no income taxes collected at all in 1900.48 In North Carolina, during the same period, half the counties had no income tax returns filed.49 This ad-ministrative defect in state income taxes would not be corrected until the twentieth century, after the federal income tax was reintro-duced in 1913.

Conclusion

The history of the income tax in the southern United States during the nineteenth century reveals a series of experiments in which the states and the Confederacy sought a satisfactory system of taxing their citizens. During this period the tax evolved from a license and occupations tax into a broad-based income tax. Other modern concepts such as tax equity, the taxing of disposable income, the use of progressive tax rates, the use of the same tax base by the state and national governments, the use of the tax to stimulate and to control business activity and the distinction between a “gross” income tax and a “net” income tax can be seen in the income taxes of the 1800s. Such developments influenced the U.S. federal income tax enacted in 1913.

The income taxes in the southern states were not successful; only during the Civil War were large amounts of revenue collected. The failure of these taxes was due in part to the weak, decentralized ad-ministration system which the states used to collect their state taxes, and in part to the lack of popular support. The emergency of war appears to have produced widespread voluntary compliance. It was not until the twentieth century that the state tax administration improved to make the income tax a major source of state revenue.

FOOTNOTES

1Seligman, pp. 399-402.
2National Industrial Conference Board, pp. 19-20.
3Seligman, pp. 402-403.
4Kennan, p. 232.
5National Industrial Conference Board, p. 20.
6Seligman, p. 405.
7Kennan, p. 212.
8National Industrial Conference Board, p. 87.
9Kennan, p. 232.
10National Industrial Conference Board, p. 20.
11 National Industrial Conference Board, p. 20,
12Seligman, p. 404.
13Seligman, p. 405.
14Seligman, p. 406.
15Seligman, p. 407.
16Kennan, p. 233.
17National Industrial Conference Board, p. 88.
18Kennan, pp. 210-211.
19Kennan, pp. 229-230.
20Kennan, p. 213.
21Kennan, p. 213.
22Kennan, p. 214.
23Seligman, p. 412.
24Kennan, p. 214.
25Seligman, p. 413.
26Seligman, p. 413.
27Kennan, p. 269.
28Seligman, p. 485.
29Seligman, p. 486.
30Kennan, p. 270.
31Kennan, pp. 270-271.
32Seligman, pp. 487-488.
35Seligman, pp. 489-490.
34Se!igman, p. 491.
35Seligman, p. 487.
36Seligman, p. 410.
37Seligman, p. 412.
38Seligman, p. 410.
39Kennan, p. 231.
40Seligman, p. 413.
41National Industrial Conference Board, p. 21.
42Seligman, p. 408.
43National Industrial Conference Board, p. 88.
44Seligman, p. 409.
45Seligman, p. 408.
46Bennett, p. 72.
47Seligman, p. 413.
48Seligman, pp. 414-415.
49Bennett, p. 72.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bennett, Shelby S. Joint Filing Versus Separate Filing For Spouses: An Empirical Study of the North Carolina Individual Income Tax System, unpublished doctoral dissertation from the University of North Carolina—Chapel Hill, North Carolina, 1980.

Kennan, Kossuth K. Income Taxation, Milwaukee, Wisconsin: Burdick & Allen, 1910.

National Industrial Conference Board, Inc., State Income Taxes, Historical Devel-opments, Volume I, New York City, National Industrial Conference Board, Inc., 1930.

Samson, William: Conforming the North Carolina Individual Income Tax to the Federal Income Tax: An Empirical Examination of the Shifts in Tax Burdens, unpublished doctoral dissertation from the University of North Carolina—Chapel
Hill, North Carolina, 1981.

Seligman, Edwin R. A. The Income Tax, New York City, The MacMillan Com
pany, 1911.