united-states tax-law us-constitution fees voting
Are government fees considered taxes?
<p>Are government fees, like the one for getting a passport or a drivers licence, considered taxes from a constitutional perspective? To clarify <strong>I am not asking for income tax purposes</strong>. I suppose it might depend on the service, like the difference between the gas tax and a toll; or the rights to the service, but most fees seem to "look like a tax, and quack like a tax".</p>

<p>The reason I ask is that the Twenty-Fourth Amendment states:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><em>The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State <strong>by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax</strong>.</em></p>
</blockquote>

<p>but, with the new movement by some states to require voters to have identification to vote, and the fact that no state I know of provides free government issued ID (unless you are an employee) it seems that unless a state provided its residents with free access to state-issued ID, that requiring people to go pay for ID's needed to vote would be contrary to the Twenty-Fourth Amendment.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>with the new movement by some states to require voters to have
  identification to vote, and the fact that no state I know of provides
  free government issued ID (unless you are an employee) it seems that
  unless a state provided its residents with free access to state-issued
  ID, that requiring people to go pay for ID's needed to vote would be
  contrary to the Twenty-Fourth Amendment.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This specific issue (which is much easier to address than the general question) has been litigated, and in some cases, it has been a successful argument.</p>

<p>It is pretty much acknowledged now that requiring a fee for all documents required in order to have ID necessary to vote violates the 24th Amendment. But, the states that enacted these requirements knew that and tried to get around it by making at least one form of voter ID free, which prevents the statutes from being facially invalid. </p>

<p><a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/voter-id-poll-tax-common-sense/story?id=16758232" rel="nofollow noreferrer">This isn't the end of the question</a>, however:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Voter ID laws, enacted in 11 states over the past two years, require
  voters to show a government-issued photo ID that the state will
  provide for free. But while the ID is free, <strong>the documents residents
  need to prove their identity in order to get that ID, such as a birth
  certificate,</strong> are not.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Now, lots of people already have documents like birth certificates that were purchased by their parents at their birth and are now available to them for free. But, that isn't always the case. This raises the question of whether there is an "as applied" violation of the 24th Amendment in the cases of someone who can't prove their entitlement to compliant voter ID without paying for it, and if so, what the proper remedy is for the violation.</p>

<p>These issues are still being actively litigated and haven't been definitively resolved on a national basis in all circumstances.</p>

<p>Taxes are not defined in the US Constitution nor as a general term by any federal statute, but a tax is considered to be a government assessment on property and transactions (e.g. import, sale, transfer of property), assessed to defray the cost of running a government. Governments also charge fees for specific services. Stemming from <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_218_(1996)" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Proposition 218</a>, California's constitution requires voter approval to increase taxes, but not fees. Article <a href="http://www.boe.ca.gov/lawguides/property/current/ptlg/ccp/art-XIII-C-all.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">XIII-C</a> defines "tax" as "any levy, charge, or exaction of any kind imposed by a local government except"...</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>(1) A charge imposed for a specific benefit conferred or privilege
  granted directly to the payor that is not provided to those not
  charged, and which does not exceed the reasonable costs to the local
  government of conferring the benefit or granting the privilege.</p>
  
  <p>(2) A charge imposed for a specific government service or product
  provided directly to the payor that is not provided to those not
  charged, and which does not exceed the reasonable costs to the local
  government of providing the service or product.</p>
  
  <p>(3) A charge imposed for the reasonable regulatory costs to a local
  government for issuing licenses and permits, performing
  investigations, inspections, and audits, enforcing agricultural
  marketing orders, and the administrative enforcement and adjudication
  thereof.</p>
  
  <p>(4) A charge imposed for entrance to or use of local government
  property, or the purchase, rental, or lease of local government
  property.</p>
  
  <p>(5) A fine, penalty, or other monetary charge imposed by the judicial
  branch of government or a local government, as a result of a violation
  of law.</p>
  
  <p>(6) A charge imposed as a condition of property development.</p>
  
  <p>(7) Assessments and property-related fees imposed in accordance with
  the provisions of Article XIII D.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Providing a driver's license or state ID card would not be a "tax" under California's constitution.</p>

<p><a href="https://caselaw.findlaw.com/co-court-of-appeals/1675557.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">TABOR Foundation v. Colorado Bridge Enterprise</a> has some potential relevance  for legally defining "tax". The court recites the distinction thusly:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The purpose of a tax is to “provide revenues in order to defray the
  general expenses of government as distinguished from the expense of a
  specific function or service.”  Bloom v. City of Fort Collins, 784
  P.2d 304, 307 (Colo.1989).  “Unlike a tax, a special fee is not
  designed to raise revenues to defray the general expenses of
  government, but rather is a charge imposed upon persons or property
  for the purpose of defraying the cost of a particular governmental
  service.”  Barber v. Ritter, 196 P.3d 238, 248 (Colo.2008) (quoting
  Bloom, 784 P.2d at 308).   Therefore, a fee may be subject to
  invalidation as a tax when the principal purpose of the fee is to
  raise revenues for general governmental purposes rather than to defray
  the expenses of the particular service for which the fee is imposed.
   Bloom, 784 P.2d at 308.</p>
  
  <p>“To determine whether a government mandated financial imposition is a
  ‘fee’ or a ‘tax,’ the dispositive criteria is the primary or dominant
  purpose of such imposition at the time the enactment calling for its
  collection is passed.”  Barber, 196 P.3d at 248</p>
</blockquote>

<p>So again, charging for a driver's license or a state ID card would not constitute a "tax" under these interpretations of "tax". </p>

<p>It is hard to know what SCOTUS would rule if the matter came to them. Recall that in <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/11-393" rel="nofollow noreferrer">National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius</a>, it was held that the "teeth" of the individual mandate was held to be a penalty and not a tax, with respect to the Anti-Injunction Act (therefore, the court can hear the case). But then it <em>is</em> a tax (thus authorized under the Tax and Spend Clause)</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The Affordable Care Act's requirement that certain individuals pay a
  financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be
  characterized as a tax. Because the Constitution permits such a tax,
  it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or
  fairness</p>
</blockquote>
