Search

Passage of an American stamp tax in 1765 produced a sharp political backlash before the year was out. That new tax was part of a larger programme of imperial reform championed by the Grenville ministry. Now out of power, Grenville and his supporters resisted the growing desire in both houses of parliament to end the imperial crisis by repealing the new tax. During debates that began in early 1766 there were those few, most notably William Pitt, who wanted to discuss constitutional ultimates as part of the move toward repeal. Pitt contended that parliament did not have the authority to tax the colonies directly. Grenville disagreed and warned that if parliament accepted any limit to its supremacy the colonists would eventually claim legislative autonomy. When debating the distinction – if indeed any such distinction existed – between taxation and legislation, and between internal and external taxes, Pitt, Grenville and their parliamentary contemporaries raised questions about authority and power that they could not answer. There were no words to describe perfectly the imperial relationship, a relationship that, as Benjamin Franklin hinted in his testimony to the Commons, was always subject to change anyway. Avoiding constitutional questions had not seemed to work; trying to answer them did not work any better, at least in the contentious atmosphere of that moment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article reports that the decision in Crescent Miami Center, LLC v. Florida Department of Revenue, may result in the Florida documentary stamp tax applying to substantially fewer transfers of Florida real estate. Florida imposes a documentary stamp tax on transfers of real estate by deed at a rate of $0.70 per $100 or part thereof of consideration. The prima facie elements for the application of documentary stamp tax are a conveyance of an interest in real property to a purchaser for consideration. The Florida Supreme Court granted review of the Third District's decision in Crescent based on a direct conflict with the Second District Court of Appeal's decision in the case of Kuro, Inc. v. State Department of Revenue.

Having outlasted the controversy which surrounded their sharp rise in usage during the 1950s in the U.S., trading stamps must now be regarded as an important retail marketing device. About one-half of all food sales in the U.S. and nearly a third of the gasoline sales involve trading stamps, and retailers pay stamp companies about one billion dollars for the stamps they distribute each year. This seems an appropriate time to ask whether all consumers benefit from trading stamps. There have been both subjective and objective approaches to this question. Researchers found that consumers attach importance to stamps because the stamps fill psychological needs, but most efforts have taken a more objective approach, centering on whether trading stamps lead to a rise in prices. Some price studies have compared changes in prices, between stores that give stamps and those that do not, in an effort to isolate the effect of trading stamps on price.

The article presents information on the marketing implications of unfair competition. The Federal Trade Commission's adoption of cigarette advertising guides and restrictions is reported. Additionally, the article reports on antitrading stamp laws in Utah and North Dakota. Utah sought to prohibit the sale of trading stamps below cost, and North Dakota to require licenses.

The article reports that the U.S. House Democrats has finally decided to follow what may be described as the line of least resistance by reviving the special taxes imposed in connection with the Spanish war in 1898. It is now proposed to impose a stamp tax on commercial and legal papers, special taxes on bankers and brokers, a special tax on tobacco dealers, an increase of fifty cents a barrel in the tax on beer, and taxes on gasoline, dry wines and sweet wine.

The article traces the origin of the policy of no taxation without representation in the U.S. The declaratory resolves presented in the Parliament on March 9, 1764 which aimed to levy a stamp tax upon the people of the colonies were followed by protest for individuals and public bodies throughout the colonies. In relation to this, a series of resolutions was introduced by legislator Patrick Henry into the House of Burgesses. It cites that the colonists were the first to claim that it was a constitutional right of English subjects to be taxed only with their own consent.