## Facts

- Sonzinsky operated as a firearms dealer within the meaning of the National Firearms Act of 1934, which defined certain weapons (including short-barreled shotguns and rifles, concealable weapons other than pistols or revolvers, machine guns, and silencers) as “firearms.”
- Section 2 of the Act required each firearms dealer to register with the local Collector of Internal Revenue and pay a $200 annual special excise tax (with higher annual taxes for importers and manufacturers).
- Sonzinsky was indicted in federal district court on two counts; the first count charged him with dealing in firearms without paying the § 2 tax.
- He was convicted in the district court.
- The court of appeals set aside the conviction on the second count but affirmed the conviction on the first count.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari limited to the constitutional validity of § 2 as applied under the first count.

## Issues

1. Whether the $200 annual dealer exaction in § 2 is a valid exercise of Congress’s taxing power, or an unconstitutional regulatory measure masquerading as a tax.
2. Whether § 2’s registration and related recordkeeping requirements are permissible as incidents of administering and enforcing a federal tax.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed.
- Section 2’s requirement that firearms dealers register and pay an annual $200 tax, backed by criminal penalties for noncompliance, was upheld as a valid exercise of the federal taxing power.
- The Court declined to rule on the validity of other provisions (including the separate transfer tax and related regulations) because the conviction sustained rested only on § 2 and the Act’s provisions were severable.

## Legal Principles

- Congress may select subjects of taxation and impose excise taxes on conducting particular businesses.
- A tax does not cease to be a tax because it has regulatory effects, is burdensome, tends to restrict the taxed activity, or produces little revenue.
- Courts generally will not investigate congressional motive when Congress acts pursuant to an enumerated power such as taxation, and will not recharacterize a facial tax as an impermissible penalty based on collateral inquiry into its regulatory impact.
- Congress may employ means appropriate and plainly adapted to enforcing a tax, including registration and recordkeeping requirements reasonably related to tax collection and administration.
- When a statute contains severability and the judgment rests on a specific provision, the Court may confine review to that provision and avoid passing on others not necessary to the disposition.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld the National Firearms Act’s annual dealer tax and registration requirement as a constitutional exercise of Congress’s taxing power, holding that regulatory consequences and alleged legislative purpose do not invalidate a tax that is valid on its face and supported by enforcement measures reasonably related to collection.


Sonzinsky v. United States, 300 U.S. 506 (1937)