"The joint dissenters argue that we cannot uphold §5000A as a tax because Congress did not frame it assuch. Post, at 17. In effect, they contend that even if the Constitution permits Congress to do exactly what we interpret this statute to do, the law must be struck down because Congress used the wrong labels. An example may help illustrate why labels should not control here. Suppose Congress enacted a statute providing that every taxpayer who owns a house without energy efficient windows must pay $50 to the IRS. The amount due is adjusted based on factors such as taxable income and joint filing status, and is paid along with the taxpayers income tax return. Those whose income is below the filing thresholdneed not pay. The required payment is not called a tax,a penalty, or anything else. No one would doubt that this law imposed a tax, and was within Congresss power to tax. That conclusion should not change simply because Congress used the word penalty to describe the payment. Interpreting such a law to be a tax would hardly impos[e] a tax through judicial legislation. Post, at 25. Rather, it would give practical effect to the Legislatures enactment.
Our precedent demonstrates that Congress had the power to impose the exaction in §5000A under the taxing power, and that §5000A need not be read to do more thanimpose a tax. That is sufficient to sustain it. The question of the constitutionality of action taken by Congress does not depend on recitals of the power which it undertakes to exercise."