Is U.S. income tax invalid?

O'BILL: what evidence would convince you that the tax protesters are wrong?

0 Replies

Set, how does that factoid stack up against this excerpt from a previous post?

OCCOM BILL wrote:

...You imply that the people get to choose our government's fiscal path through their votes, but do they? Is there any doubt in your mind what the result of a balanced budget referendum would be?

Meanwhile, our Two Party System has enacted numerous Laws to protect itself to the mutual benefit of the politicians Vs. the people they supposedly represent. How could anyone, in good conscience, pretend that this isn't so? Or that the ramifications of same doesn't include a reduction in the Power of the People over the system that supposedly works for them?

The system itself is in the ongoing, inevitable process of turning on its master (us).

He said he didn't vote on it. But did he really ever have a meaningful opportunity to vote on it? Would any candidate with a realistic chance do away with it? The last 3rd party candidate, that have had the slightest chance, was denied participation in the Presidential Debates, where he doubled his following and gained 19% of the popular vote in the previous election. The System protected itself. Meanwhile; have you ever seen a poll that showed popular opinion rejecting a balanced budget amendment? Clearly, we don't have the power to vote in anything we want... reach for the purse strings, and the System bites.

0 Replies

Set wrote:

"We have a republican government--that means representative democracy, and that means that the people, represented by their elected representatives in Congress assembled, virtually assent to measures passed by the Congress. If measures passed by the Congress are sufficiently odious to the people, those who object in sufficient numbers elect someone else. That's how it works, that's how it has always worked."

Unfortunately that is true.

Constitution of the United States of America
(In Convention, September 17, 1787)

Section 7.
All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the house of representatives; but the senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other bills.

Who voted for the constitution, what say did Native Americans have in its formation. How did they manage from 1787 to 1861 without a personal tax?

I too wait with baited breath for an answer to Bill's statement:

"Meanwhile, our Two Party System has enacted numerous Laws to protect itself to the mutual benefit of the politicians Vs. the people they supposedly represent. How could anyone, in good conscience, pretend that this isn't so? Or that the ramifications of same doesn't include a reduction in the Power of the People over the system that supposedly works for them?

The system itself is in the ongoing, inevitable process of turning on its master (us)."

"Your argument is bootless" (Nice shine though!) --here, have a crême brulée with a nice kiwi fruit garnish."

Yummy, your peace offering is gratefully, if somewhat humbly accepted. I hear Bill has opened some sort of protein retail emporium, perhaps we should start a gastronomic debating society.

0 Replies

Bill,

If 36 states need to ratify an amendment for it to become part of the constitution and 42 states do that, how many ratifications must you overturn to make the amendment not valid?

One state that MAY have voted violated its state constitution, (but you haven't named that state nor have you looked at their state constitution,) does not an invalid 16th amendment make. But we will deal with that below

Why did this state not overturn its ratification after the next election if it was against the wishes of the electorate in that state? Did that state not have any elections from 1909- 1913? (Hint - They held elections in 1910 and 1912.)

Here is the relevent section from that state constitution, Bill.

Quote:

SECTION 4. AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
STATES
The affirmative vote of three-fifths of the members
elected to each house of the General Assembly shall be
required to request Congress to call a Federal Constitutional
Convention, to ratify a proposed amendment to the
Constitution of the United States, or to call a State
Convention to ratify a proposed amendment to the Constitution
of the United States. The General Assembly shall not take
action on any proposed amendment to the Constitution of the
United States submitted for ratification by legislatures
unless a majority of the members of the General Assembly
shall have been elected after the proposed amendment has been
submitted for ratification. The requirements of this Section
shall govern to the extent that they are not inconsistent
with requirements established by the United States.

Now lets read the US constitution.

Quote:

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

I think you can figure it out unlike the tax protestors. Do you still think they violated their state constitution in voting on an amendment submitted by Congress?

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

O'BILL: what evidence would convince you that the tax protesters are wrong?

A fresh, comprehensive look by the SC in front of competent council, answering all of the questions asked both by the "We the People website" and the Crockumentary alike would do. Alternately, the IRS could improve on their Q&A page both quantitatively and qualitatively, including direct links to sources of the relevant cases with excerpts of where and how the conclusions were arrived at. I have to believe that although cumbersome, it would result in a net profit once all of these theories were put to bed permanently. That they haven't done so, and that they don't add to it routinely each time they debunk another theory intrigues me. Why would a government agency, presumably working for the people, not make every effort to be as transparent as possible? Why does the United States Tax code have to be the size of an exceptionally thorough dictionary, yet can't clarify tempting phrases like "Voluntary Compliance" or define "Income" in a comprehensive, undeniable way? Why write phrases like "If you are required to file a Tax Return", if what you mean is "Everyone except ____,____ and ____" ? Where is the timeline for changes in the Tax code with explanations thereof over the years located on the IRS website? I'm busy now... and don't even have time to read what else has been posted... but you can get more questions by watching the damn movie! Cheers!

0 Replies

For all of O'Bill's bellyaching about the evils of the current two-party system (a subject which i have myself canvassed at length in these fora), any such objection is meaningless in claiming that the income tax is invalid. As well do away with the franchise for women, and the direct election of Senators. In fact, the Republican Party first becomes a national party with the election of Lincoln in 1860, and no creditable third party has existed since that time (all third parties since the demise of the Whigs, who weren't seen in the same terms as we view "third" parties, have only been concerned with electing individuals to the office of President, and have not organized from the ground up, seeking municipal offices, state offices, and national offices in the Congress). Therefore, does one throw out every amendment since the XII Amendment? What about the XXVII Amendment, which was originally proposed in 1789, but not ratified until 1992?

As a reasonable condemnation of the system of intrenched political influence with which we are currently saddled, O'Bill's remarks are interesting. As an objection to the basis for the income tax, they are just silly.

0 Replies

Some pretty easy questions there Bill. Most of the answers are right there in the tax code

Who has to file an income tax return?
Persons required to make returns of income

Define "income"
Actually, you need to define Gross income and taxable income. Those are what you record on your tax return.

Gross income can be found here
Gross income defined

If you are still confused then you can read this
Items specifically included in gross income

Taxable income can be found here
Taxable income defined

voluntary compliance can be found here in the IRS glossary. A handy dandy little guide you can send people to when they claim some things aren't defined.
IRS glossary

It doesn't matter how many times these questions are answered Bill, some people refuse to see the answers because it would require them to change their world perceptions. They have been debunked. They have been litigated. They have been destroyed but some people just refuse to admit it and keep asking the questions as if they were never answered. They have been answered. They have been answered to the point that the courts now fine people for continuing to ask them. Why is that do you think? Have you never seen a child punished for acting this way? Some people didn't learn as kids and still need a reminder from adults.

They write things like "If you are required to file a tax return" because it is easier than writing "If you are an individual having for the taxable year gross income which equals or exceeds the exemption amount or a corporation subject to taxation under subtitle A or a trust having for the taxable year any taxable income, or having gross income of $600 or over, regardless of the amount of taxable income or ...."

0 Replies

I was using the two-Party System as an undeniable example of our government's "System" protecting itself, Set. It was used as a rebuttal to Parados' argument that Tryagain had ample opportunity to eliminate Income Tax with his vote. Do you believe he really does?

Moreover, with your historical knowledge, you could probably name dozens, if not hundreds, of examples of the System overriding the desires of it's owners, throughout our history, couldn't you?

For instance; does Joe Citizen really vote to spend $100,000 to study the mating habits of the Japanese quail or $200,000 to study the sex life of houseflies? Would a majority of citizens really have agreed to spend $200,000,000 on a new Federal Courthouse Building despite the fact that at the time there existed 17,000,000 Sq ft of vacant government office space? Was there ever really a point in our history when Joe Citizen was convinced that he should give up 30% of his income to the most wasteful entity mankind has ever known? Really?

Did any politician really consult his constituency with respect to removing the Gold Standard? In a referendum, what percentage of Citizens, at any point in time, would have agreed to let a privately held company (the Federal Reserve) manage our collective wealth? (I'd say this question is relevant considering that's where every nickel of our Income Tax goes.) Now Parados asks us to believe that our votes actually control the spending of the Federal Government? Laughing

Are you sh!tting me, Parados?

parados wrote:

Tryagain,
I have never voted to make murder illegal. I have never voted to make theft illegal. I have never voted to make driving without a license illegal. I have never voted that immigrants must apply to the US before they come here. The list goes on and on.

The vividly clear difference between your examples and mine listed above, is the assumed will of the people. What percentage of Citizens do you think would vote against making Murder or Theft illegal? Beyond making an argument (actually, just stating the obvious), presumably for the sake of argument; how does any of that post even address Tryagain's actual point? He threw caution over unwarranted derision "to the wind", and predictably, unwarranted derision is what he got for his trouble (by way of patronization as if he may somehow be unaware of how our system works Rolling Eyes

).

Set, it's kind of difficult to create a "credible" Third Party when the 2-Party "System" defends itself via ridiculously unfair practices, including but not limited to; creating additional campaign funding, at tax-payer expense, to the mutual benefit of Democrats and Republicans and to the exclusion of any and all other Parties. This is yet another example of "Dirty pool", whether it is legal or not. This is yet another example of the "System" fighting against the will of the people, on behalf of whom is supposedly works.

Ps. Don't let my aggravation with the "System" mislead into thinking I don't recognize it as WAY above average... if not the single best system ever implemented on such a massive scale.

PPs. There's a LOT more bellyaching where that came from. :wink:

0 Replies

Bill,
I see no reason to ever vote for a road to go past your house. I am sure you never see a reason to vote for a road to go past my house. You would be lucky to get 30% of the population to fund sending more troops into Iraq. Boondoggles are in the eye of the beholder.

If we put all those measures in front of the people nothing would ever get done because nothing we do can really benefit 50% or more of the entire US population. Democracy is messy. It means a lot of things get passed that not everyone wants. Its all part of the great compromise required. Yes, sometimes it is expensive. Yes, sometimes they go overboard but that is when people are voted out like in this past election. The earmarks by the Republicans had a lot to do with why they lost both houses. The democrats said they would work to eliminate those earmarks. Only time will tell. If they don't then the GOP will run on eliminating them and the Dems will be tossed out.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Bill,
I see no reason to ever vote for a road to go past your house. I am sure you never see a reason to vote for a road to go past my house. You would be lucky to get 30% of the population to fund sending more troops into Iraq. Boondoggles are in the eye of the beholder.

Your first two propositions I disagree with, though I don't think the Federal Government has any business building rural roads... and I don't think they do anyway. The troop proposition, if passed despite a minority of Americans supporting it; would further demonstrate the correctness in Tryagain and my perspective (and the incorrectness inherent in yours :wink:).

parados wrote:

If we put all those measures in front of the people nothing would ever get done because nothing we do can really benefit 50% or more of the entire US population. Democracy is messy. It means a lot of things get passed that not everyone wants. Its all part of the great compromise required. Yes, sometimes it is expensive. Yes, sometimes they go overboard but that is when people are voted out like in this past election. The earmarks by the Republicans had a lot to do with why they lost both houses. The democrats said they would work to eliminate those earmarks. Only time will tell. If they don't then the GOP will run on eliminating them and the Dems will be tossed out.

Round and round and round we go... Is that your round about way of conceding that both the Democrat and Republican politicians have indeed teamed up to the mutual benefit of themselves and to the detriment of their employers (us)... and that the American people (like Tryagain for instance) do not, in FACT, get to control their spending through their collective vote? If not, I move that your entire answer be stricken from the record as non-responsive. :wink:

Your IRS handbook neglects to define the word Income. Further, it offers no references to applicable case-law affirming their definition of the types of income they do define. Contrarily, wages and salary are mysteriously absent at FindLaw... which I would hope is a mutually acceptable source of information.

If you look up the 16th amendment at FindLaw, you may find it interesting that despite thoroughly explaining:

Corporate Dividends: When Taxable
Corporate Earnings: When Taxable
Gains: When Taxable
Income from Illicit Transactions
Deductions and Exemptions
Diminution of Loss

Nowhere are the words wage or salary. Nor are they present on any page of the FindLaw pages Subtitled under: Sixteenth Amendment. Strange, eh?

Now, I hope you're happy; I just wasted a couple hours affirming the veracity of the quotations listed by one of the better sounding protesters (FindLaw is one hell of a tool if you want to read boring Law until your eyes burn). Anyway, the SC excerpts quoted by my next link all check out. Feel free to verify them for yourself. In summary, he makes a very compelling case that the 16th Amendment does not encompass wages and salaries, because doing so would create a "Direct Tax". (SC Chief Justice White's opinion was very clear that the 16th amendment was an "Indirect Tax" and that it did not do away with earlier restrictions on Direct Taxes)... yet lower courts are all over the board on that question. It seems there should be little debate whether the intention of the 16th amendment was meant to work in harmony with the constitution as written insofar as "Direct Taxes" were restricted. I hope you'll take the time to at least read what the man has to say. He makes his case far better than I could hope to paraphrase it (At the very least; read Part 4).
Here it is: Webpage Title

0 Replies

Bill,

Let me direct you to some of the court cases that deal with wages and income -
http://www.adl.org/mwd/suss6.asp#income

Quote:

wages not "income": US v. Connor (3d Cir 1990) 898 F2d 942 cert.den 497 US 1029; Connor v. CIR (2d Cir 1985) 770 F2d 17 (argument is so frivolous that it can be penalized); Wm. Belz v. US (6th Cir unpub 3/10/86) 787 F2d 588(t); Casper v. CIR (10th Cir 1986) 805 F2d 902; Wilcox v. CIR (9th Cir 1988) 848 F2d 1007 ("First, wages are income. ... Second, paying taxes is not voluntary."); US v. Jones (D NJ 1995) 877 F.Supp 907; Fox v. CIR (2/1/93) TC Memo 1993-37 summ.judg. granted (2/26/96) TC Memo 1996-79; US v. Taylor (6th Cir unpub 3/29/93); O'Brien v. CIR (6th Cir 1985) 779 F2d 52; Wellbaum v. US (D Ore unpub 9/20/91); Young v. IRS (ND Ind 1984) 596 F.Supp 141 ("in the clearest language ... wages are income"); US v. Gerads (8th Cir 1993) 999 F2d 1255 cert.den 510 US 1193; US v. Koliboski (7th Cir 1984) 732 F2d 1328; Brown v. US (4/3/96) 35 Fed.Claims 258 aff'd (Fed Cir 1997) 105 F3d 621; Stubbs v. CIR (11th Cir 1986) 797 F2d 936; Palmer v. CIR (10/9/97) TC Memo 1997-462; Beard v. CIR (1984) 82 Tax Ct 766 (nr. 60) aff'd (6th Cir 1986) 793 F2d 139; L.R. Olson v. US (9th Cir 1985) 760 F2d 1003 (tried to deduct all his living expenses as a"cost of labor"); Koar v. US (SDNY unpub 8/14/98) 82 AFTR2d 6329, 98 USTC para 50748; ("It has been universally held that wages paid for labor and services are taxable income.") Beard v. US (ED Mich 1984) 589 F.Supp 881; Merritt v. CIR (ED Tenn unpub 2/8/84) 53 AFTR2d 619, 84 USTC para 9258 (26 USC sec. 61 "unambiguously" includes compensation for services as taxable income); Lonsdale v. US (10th Cir 1990) 919 F2d 1440 (leading case); Stoecklin v. CIR (11th Cir 1989) 865 F2d 1221; US v. Rhodes (MD Penn 1996) 921 F.Supp 261 aff'd (3d Cir 1996) 101 F3d 693(t) & (3d Cir 1997) 107 F3d 9(t); McNair v. Eggers (11th Cir 1986) 788 F2d 1509; Jensen v. US (D Mass unpub 3/1/84) 53 AFTR2d 1067, 84 USTC para 9283; Holker v. US (8th Cir 1984) 737 F2d 751; Collorafi v. US (EDNY unpub 12/2/83) 53 AFTR2d 464, 84 USTC para 9107; (court said in capital letters that "WAGES ARE INCOME") US v. Dube (7th Cir 1987) 820 F2d 886; US v. Koliboski (7th Cir 1984) 732 F2d 1328; (perp argued that as a laborer "engaged in a common law occupation" his wages were not taxable; "Federal courts have all agreed that wages or compensation for services constitute income and the individuals receiving income are subject to the federal income tax, regardless of its nature.") US v. Melton (4th Cir unpub 3/8/96) 86 F3d 1153(t), 77 AFTR2d 2361 cert.den 519 US 820; Peth v. Breitzman (ED Wis 1985) 611 F.Supp 50 (this plaintiff later convicted for printing fake money orders); US v. Jones (D NJ 1995) 877 F.Supp 907 aff'd 74 F3d 1228; Mathes v. CIR (1986) 252 US App DC 131, 788 F2d 33 cert.den 479 US 972; Roth v. CIR (9/23/92) TC Memo 1992-563; Baronowski v. US Govt thru the CIR (ED La unpub 3/10/86) 58 AFTR2d 5172, 86 USTC para 9436; Bixler v. CIR (7/23/96) TC Memo 1996-329; ("legal garbage ... uniformly resulting in decisions against the protesters") Weller v. CIR (8/5/85) TC Memo 1985-387; ("Courts are in no way obligated to tolerate arguments that thoroughly defy common sense" - both the lawyer and his client subjected to very heavy fines for frivolous pleadings) Charczuk v. CIR (10th Cir 1985) 771 F2d 471; US v. Taylor (6th Cir unpub 3/29/93); Rowlee v. CIR (6/15/83) 80 TC 1111 (the reference to "gain" in the Eisner v. Macomber decision is dicta since the case dealt with taxing stock dividends, and is refuted by the words of Stratton's Independence v. Howbert [1913] 231 US 399 at 415); ditto US v. Rhodes (MD Penn 1996) 921 F.Supp 261 aff'd (3d Cir 1996) 101 F3d 693(t) & (3d Cir 1997) 107 F3d 9(t); Lovell v. US (7th Cir 1984) 755 F2d 517; In re Weatherley (Bankr. E.D. Penn 1994) 169 Bankr.Rptr 555, 25 Bankr.Ct.Dec 1427; US v. House (WD Mich 1985) 617 F.Supp 232 aff'd 787 F2d 593(t); Luesse v. US (D Minn unpub 3/19/84) 53 AFTR2d 1329, 84 USTC para 9389; Walker alias Theonaleth v. CIR (3/12/96) TC Memo 1996-124; Walker alia Theonaleth v. CIR (4/5/93) TC Memo 1993-138 aff'd (2d Cir 1994) 19 F3d 9(t); Ball v. US (D. Ore unpub 8/24/93) 72 AFTR2d 5958, 93 USTC para 50665 sanctions added (D. Ore unpub 10/5/93) 72 AFTR2d 6442; US v. Schiefen (D SD 1995) 926 F.Supp 877 aff'd 81 F3d 166 mand.denied 522 US 1074; Baker v. CIR (10/16/95) TC Memo 1995-495 aff'd (5th Cir 1996) 98 F3d 1338; ("These are tired arguments.") Krah v. US (ND IL unpub 12/11/87) 71A AFTR2d 3001, 88 USTC para 9147; ditto Coleman v. CIR (7th Cir 1986) 791 F2d 68; Hodges v. CIR (7/6/98) TC Memo 1998-242; ditto Cullinane v. CIR (1/4/99) TC Memo 1999-2; (this argument raised in criminal appeal was "frivolous square" and perp would be fined for meritless appeal under a provision that usually applied only to civil appeals) US v. A.D. Cooper (7th Cir 1999) 170 F3d 691. The perp argument that taxable "income" is limited to business (or corporate) profits is wrong, being based on some very early court decisions that dealt only with corporations and not with individuals. Tornichio v. US (ND Ohio unpub 3/12/98) 81 AFTR2d 1377, 98 USTC para 50299; similarly Ghalardi Income Tax Education Foundation [& Webber] v. CIR (12/30/98) TC Memo 1998-460; in one instance the judge himself gave the tax protester copies of some precedent decisions that exploded his arguments but the perp persisted in his futile arguments with the result that the court imposed a very substantial fine ($10G) for frivolous and dilatory litigation. Kinkade v. CIR (6/1/99) TC Memo 1999-180

The IRS deals with the wages aren't income issue here
http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=106503,00.html

The 16th amendment was an AMENDMENT. It amended the earlier constituiton. It only allowed for an indirect tax on "income from whatever source derived." Did you read all of White's opinion or only the parts you were provided ?

It can be found here..
Brushaber vs Union Pacific
This is the relevent part..

Quote:

It is clear on the face of this text that it does not purport to confer power to levy income taxes in a generic sense,-an authority already possessed and never questioned, [240 U.S. 1, 18] -or to limit and distinguish between one kind of income taxes and another, but that the whole purpose of the Amendment was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from apportionment from a consideration of the source whence the income was derived.

The case argument revolves around how the source of the income can make it a direct tax or an indirect tax. Courts were "all over the board" depending on whether the income was from a direct or an indirect source. Taxes on income from wages were legal before the 16th amendment. Taxes on income from property had been declared illegal. The 16th amendment removed all income taxes from the direct or indirect argument and made them all constitutional.

So lets recap and compare it to the historical arguments you were given in that treatise.
Before 1909, taxes on income from wages were legal, Pollack in 1895 made taxes on income from property illegal. So the argument was to institute an income tax on property owners and not just on wage earners required the passage of the 16th amendment.

The argument that "income" is only unearned income is a typical tax protestor dodge when they use the corporate income tax rulings and claim it applies to wage earners. The courts have repeatedly rejected that argument and pointed out that "income from whatever source derived" means just that.

The ruling Phil Hart is appealling can be found here..
http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InOpHistoric/HART2.TCM.WPD.pdf
It states at the end..

Quote:

Petitioner has pursued a frivolous and groundless position
throughout this proceeding. At the beginning of this trial,
petitioner was clearly warned that if he proceeded with the
arguments contained in his written submission, then he would be
subject to penalties. Petitioner knew or should have known that
his position was groundless and frivolous, yet he persisted in
maintaining this proceeding primarily to impede the proper
workings of our judicial system and to delay the payment of his
Federal income tax liabilities. Accordingly, a penalty is
awarded to the United States under section 6673 in the amount of
$10,000 in each docket.
To the extent we have not addressed petitioner's arguments,
we have considered them and find them to be without merit.

I don't think you will be seeing Mr Hart's case on the docket of the USSC anytime soon. He gussies them up nicely with a lot of legal citations but ignores the main points of those rulings.

0 Replies

The apathy of our electorate in the face of entrenched political self-interest is not something which i have ever denied--nor is it a sound basis to suggest that the income tax is somehow illegal. The only cure for apathy is action--so if you think the average tax payer is the hapless victim of evil politicians, then i suggest you get on the ball and organize a movement to change the law, rather than wasting a lot of your time on bootless arguments about the legality of the income tax. The XVIth Amendment was duly ratified in the process established by the Constitution. It's text does not deal with any details of the taxing process, it simply provides Congress the authorization to do so. It was offered to the States by the Congress in the routine and lawful manner outlined in the Constitution, and the States ratified it.

Whether or not taxpayer funds should be spent in ways of which you disapprove, and despite your contempt for the current system--the only cure for the situation is voter action. Unless and until you or someone else is able to organize the electorate to profoundly change the system as it exists, this is just so much chin music.

0 Replies

From the 4th page of the site you listed Bill.

Quote:

The rulings of the lower courts of this country on the income tax issue are an embarrassment to our American system of self-government. As was noted earlier, in part 2 of this series of 4 articles, on the direct tax vs. indirect tax issue, the lower courts have said that the income tax is a direct tax, that it is an indirect tax, that it is neither, both and that the question is irrelevant.

So, if we examine just Brushaber V Union Pacific we see that income taxes can be a direct tax when tied to property or an indirect tax which means they can be both. (No citation for the "none" claim.) and then the passage of the 16th amendment made the question of direct or indirect irrrelevent since it allowed for all income to be taxed regardless of its source.

The page is an argument based on a faulty premise Bill. It throws dust without any attempt to illuminate. It ignores parts of Brushaber that clarifies and pretty much eliminates Hart's argument.

Quote:

We say this because it is to be observed that although from the date of the Hylton Case, because of statements made in the opinions in that case, it had come to be accepted that direct taxes in the constitutional sense were confined to taxes levied directly on real estate because of its ownership, the Amendment contains nothing repudiation or challenging the ruling in the Pollock Case that the word 'direct' had a broader significance, since it embraced also taxes levied directly on personal property because of its ownership, and therefore the Amendment at least impliedly makes such wider significance a part of the Constitution,-a condition which clearly demonstrates that the purpose was not to change the existing interpretation except to the extent necessary to accomplish the result intended; that is, the prevention of the resort to the sources from which a taxed income was derived in order to cause a direct tax on the income to be a direct tax on the source itself, and thereby to take an income tax out of the class of excises, duties, and imposts, and place it in the class of direct taxes.

So Brushaber doesn't say what Hart claims at all. Because the amendment doesn't challenge the definition in Pollack, that definition would remain as ruled. So Brushaber says income tax includes direct and indirect taxes and prevents any future arguments about what kind of source, direct or indirect, is being taxed. The 16th amendment doesn't allow for property taxes so it doesn't change direct vs indirect taxes for anything beyond income. Hart is blowing smoke that a simple reading of his supposed sources will clear away.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
O'BILL: what evidence would convince you that the tax protesters are wrong?
A fresh, comprehensive look by the SC in front of competent council, answering all of the questions asked both by the "We the People website" and the Crockumentary alike would do.

That won't happen. The supreme court hears only a small fraction of the cases that it received by writ of certiorari every session. It won't waste its time on cases where it has already issued a definitive opinion on the subject matter or where it thinks that the lower courts have correctly interpreted the law. In the case of questions regarding the validity of the income tax, the court has shown absolutely no inclination to revisit that matter -- with good reason.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Alternately, the IRS could improve on their Q&A page both quantitatively and qualitatively, including direct links to sources of the relevant cases with excerpts of where and how the conclusions were arrived at. I have to believe that although cumbersome, it would result in a net profit once all of these theories were put to bed permanently.

Well, as parados and others here have pointed out, the IRS site has links to cases that thoroughly demolish all of the most persistent arguments against the validity of the income tax. If you can't figure out those cases, the problem isn't with the cases or with the IRS, it's with you. Rather than complaining about how difficult it is to understand the reasoning behind the cases, you should try and listen to those who do understand them.

Furthermore, I think you're being unduly optimistic in thinking that a detailed explanation by the IRS would quiet the critics: if dozens of adverse court opinions and substantial penalties haven't done that yet, an explanation from the IRS isn't likely to convince them.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

That they haven't done so, and that they don't add to it routinely each time they debunk another theory intrigues me. Why would a government agency, presumably working for the people, not make every effort to be as transparent as possible? Why does the United States Tax code have to be the size of an exceptionally thorough dictionary, yet can't clarify tempting phrases like "Voluntary Compliance" or define "Income" in a comprehensive, undeniable way? Why write phrases like "If you are required to file a Tax Return", if what you mean is "Everyone except ____,____ and ____" ? Where is the timeline for changes in the Tax code with explanations thereof over the years located on the IRS website? I'm busy now... and don't even have time to read what else has been posted... but you can get more questions by watching the damn movie! Cheers!

The tax code is long and complex because it is the product of various competing political interests. It long ago ceased to be an instrument solely devoted to raising revenue and has become a means of social engineering. Tax reform, however, is a political question, not a legal one. If you don't like the way the tax code is written, then complain to your congressman and senators, not to a judge.

0 Replies

The best way to achieve that objective is to spread lies. Then keep repeating the lies until you get enough fools to believe you. Then have the fools elect you to office. At that point you can do whatever the hell you want.

Of course the lies have to be somewhat believable which is why the tax protestor movement won't ever achieve that objective.

The democrats and republicans on the other hand.........

0 Replies

I've only got a couple minutes now... but. You guys are missing Hart's point about Brushaber, I think. Likely, because you haven't familiarized yourself with his argument, and I can not clarify it in a compelling way with a few paragraphs... but I can provide an outline. In 1916, according to Hart, FindLaw and Wikipedia; Brushaber was ruled correctly. In the conclusion, Justice White explained that BOTH sides were wrong. The opinion was that the 16th Amendment was not a Direct Tax, so Brushaber enjoyed no constitutional protection from it as such. That is NOT what the prosecutor had argued. The prosecutor argued that the 16th amendment did away with the restrictions on Direct Taxes and was wrong. According to White, the 16th was intended to work in harmony with the original constitution and that the apportionment on Indirect Taxes was the fundamental change. This is the meat of the argument. Brushaber's Income, was not derived from wages or Salaries and therefore would not appropriately fit the definition of a Direct Tax (again, this is contrary to the prosecutor's argument). Clearly, this means Brushaber was liable and all parties are in agreement on this.

However, at this point "Income, from whatever source derived" has yet to be defined. Since Brushaber attaches it to "Indirect Taxes", which are taxes not every American is compelled to pay, the legality of a Direct Tax has not changed... and his language in subsequent cases seems to affirm this. Hence, every time a court rules that Income Tax is a legal Direct Tax it does so in error. An owner of a restaurant, or railroad, or Income producing stock portfolio or even a drug dealer has an absolute obligation to pay tax on that Income. THIS is what is clearly established by Brushaber and subsequent cases. What is unclearly, but nevertheless established is that this also applies to wage earners. Hart reasonably asks how you could include wage earners without having established a Direct Tax? The answer is not found in Brushaber because that wasn't the question at hand. What is significant is Justice Brown's opinion is that the 16th as applied in Brushaber wasn't an attempt to oblige a Direct Tax.

The establishment of a Direct Tax had been shot down, repeatedly in Congress and indeed the 16th amendment wasn't passed until that language was removed. Why? Had that language remained, there could be no doubt about the intention of the 16th. We are now asked to believe it was the intent of lawmakers to create a paradoxical amendment that simultaneously did away with the protections against a Direct Tax, but overwrote them just the same. If this was the intention, why not simply include the language "Direct Tax" in the amendment? Hart points out the reason; it is because they tried that first, repeatedly, and it wouldn't pass. This is, apparently, what Justice White concluded and the reason he rejected the prosecutor's argument as well as Brushaber's.

Joe wrote:

Rather than complaining about how difficult it is to understand the reasoning behind the cases, you should try and listen to those who do understand them.

Joe, I understand yours and Parados's parroting of previous opinions just fine. This discussion doesn't even apply to me, and I'm not claiming Hart is right. I am saying the man makes a decent argument, and that it should be addressed, not laughed off as the writings of the tinfoil hat brigade. Applicably, the law is, indeed, abundantly clear, but that doesn't mean errors weren't made getting from there to here. I, reasonably, understand why "wager earners" object to the use of Brushaber to identify their argument's as frivolous. In a broader scope, this is interesting as it ties into the possibility of a greater erosion of constitutional protections, but it's absurd for you and I to discuss them for as long as you are unwilling to even hear them.

It is akin to debating the merits of Atlas Shrugged, with someone who hasn't read it, or debating relativity with someone who's satisfied with what they know about Newtonian science (you may remember I was in the wrong in that one... but incredulously couldn't believe it until I took the time to learn it for myself). On this issue, merely by admitting a little doubt, I've been thrust into the position of debating the merits of an argument my opponent's haven't even bothered to hear. I realize I am hopelessly over matched, insofar as I can not summarily argue the totality of the point, which I myself only give a little credence to, with those more satisfied in parroting minor, summarized points by piecemail. Go ahead and feel satisfied that you can effectively destroy the summarized (probably poorly at that) points, in the eyes of those who haven't bothered to try to understand the overall position. Conversely, for as long as it holds my interest, I'll continue to learn the finer points, via research and debate, while withholding judgment until I understand the totality of the error... or not. To that end, your legal expertise is appreciated, and your smug remarks about my pursuit are tolerable.

0 Replies

Bill,
I don't think we are missing Hart's point at all.

Hart is either -
1.) ignorant of the actual rulings in Brushaber and Stanton
2.) Deliberately misrepresenting and ignoring those rulings.

Hart states

Quote:

An income tax on the severable net income from business or accumulated wealth is an indirect tax. An income tax on the earned income from the wages or salary of an American Citizen is a direct tax. The government is wholly without power to collect the latter without apportionment among the several States.

Yet both Brushaber and Stanton rulings state that income tax on wages is and always has been an indirect tax. The Pollack case states an income tax on wages is an indirect tax but a tax on income from property could be a direct tax. None of the rulings Hart misuses has ever said that an income tax on wages is a direct tax. He has no legal basis to reach his conclusion that it is a direct tax. Brushaber cites several texts when it states that a direct tax is one on property.

Hart attempts to use the rejection of claims in an amicus brief to show his point. He says..

Quote:

In every way, shape and form the claim was made that the Sixteenth Amendment provided an exception to the apportionment rule.

The court said this after saying all other arguments were dealt with in STanton by referring to its ruling in Brushaber..

Quote:

In other words, we are here dealing solely with the restriction imposed by the 16th Amendment on the right to resort to the source whence an income is derived in a case where there is power to tax for the purpose of taking the income tax out of the class of indirect, to which it generically belongs, and putting it in the class of direct, to which it would not otherwise belong, in order to subject it to the regulation of apportionment.

Hart has a habit of leaving out the rest of the rulings that contradict what he is claiming the rulings mean.

0 Replies

Bill,
Let me leave you with a quote from Brushaber

Quote:

We say this because it is to be observed that although from the date of the Hylton Case, because of statements made in the opinions in that case, it had come to be accepted that direct taxes in the constitutional sense were confined to taxes levied directly on real estate because of its ownership,

Brushaber does talk more in detail about the Hylton case if you want to read it but they do say this about the Hylton ruling as well.(I believe the date for Hylton was 1796)

Quote:

that in any event the class of direct taxes included only taxes directly levied on real estate because of its ownership.

Now go read page 2 of Hart where he uses the arguments in Hylton but never seems to manage to refer to the ruling.

Hart builds his entire argument upon sand when he claims..

Quote:

The issue is actually quite simple. A direct tax is direct. The tax falls directly on the person or the thing taxed. The one who is obligated to pay such a tax is not in a position to shift it to another.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Bill,
I don't think we are missing Hart's point at all.

Hart is either -
1.) ignorant of the actual rulings in Brushaber and Stanton
2.) Deliberately misrepresenting and ignoring those rulings.

Hart states

Quote:
An income tax on the severable net income from business or accumulated wealth is an indirect tax. An income tax on the earned income from the wages or salary of an American Citizen is a direct tax. The government is wholly without power to collect the latter without apportionment among the several States.

Yet both Brushaber and Stanton rulings state that income tax on wages is and always has been an indirect tax.

I've partied too much tonight to do any serious debating, but Holy Crap Parados... could you possibly talk any further out of your ass? Please quote me where Brushaber ever mentions the word "wages". The word is damn sure found nowhere in:

Quote:

U.S. Supreme Court
BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)
240 U.S. 1

FRANK R. BRUSHABER, Appt.,
v.
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY.
No. 140.

Argued October 14 and 15, 1915.
Decided January 24, 1916.

You are either missing Hart's point, or ignorantly ignoring it through your desire to argue for the sake of argument, but either way you've proven that you have not taken the time to try and understand it. I assure you, if you can prove the preceding statement wrong, I will VERY OVERTLY admit my mistake. Do you have the same fortitude? Or should I look forward to some lame excuse for your deliberate obfuscation of the FACTs at hand. I have to wonder if you even read, let alone understood, my last post. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Is U.S. income tax invalid?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know