Is U.S. income tax invalid?

From Brushaber..

Quote:

In the first place this is shown by the fact that wherever (and there were a number of cases of that kind) a tax was levied directly on real estate or slaves because of ownership, it was treated as coming within the direct class and apportionment was provided for, while no instance of apportionment as to any other kind of tax is afforded. Again the situation is aptly illustrated by the various acts taxing incomes derived from property of every kind and nature which were enacted beginning in 1861, and lasting during what may be termed the Civil War period. It is not disputable that these latter taxing laws were classed under the head of excises, duties, and imposts because it was assumed that they were of that character inasmuch as, although putting a tax burden on income of every kind, including that derived from property real or personal, they were not taxes directly on property because of its ownership.

The income tax laws in the Civil war were on wages. While most wage earners were exempted because the average yearly wage was less than the $600 threshold for taxes. The tax was on wages which are also known as salaries.
http://www.tax.org/Museum/1861-1865.htm

Quote:

Taxes were withheld from the salaries of government employees as well as from dividends paid to corporations

A long document, read the paragraphs around what I quoted.

Also from Brushaber..

Quote:

The whole law was, however, declared unconstitutional on the ground that to permit it to thus operate would relieve real estate and invested personal property from taxation and 'would leave the burden of the tax to be borne by professions, trades, employments, or vacations; and in that way what was intended as a tax on capital would remain, in substance, a tax on occupations and labor'

Here they are talking about the 1894 law where it was ruled in Pollock that an income tax on profits from property was probably unconstitutional but the tax on occupations and labor would remain. How does labor get paid? Last time I checked they recieve a wage. If you have conflicting information please provide it.

Quote:

that the contention that the Amendment treats a tax on income as a direct tax although it is relieved from apportionment and is necessarily therefore not subject to the rule of uniformity as such rule only applies to taxes which are not direct, thus destroying the two great classifications which have been recognized and enforced from the beginning, is also wholly without foundation

Since no tax covered under the Amendment is a direct tax, a tax on the income from wages can't be a direct tax. Note that the amendment was to fix the attempt to move taxes from income from property to a direct tax. There was no need to fix income from wages since it was never considered a direct tax.

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

A direct tax is only one on real estate. A wage is not real estate so it can't be a direct tax.

I will forgive your simple text search for the word "wages" on your partying too hard. I hope you don't regret it this morning with a hangover.

I don't believe I am missing Hart's point. The treatise is entitled "Taxes on Wages and Salaries are Direct." If his point is not to argue that an income tax on wages is a direct tax then please tell us what his intent is.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

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.

You claim not to understand the argument, and yet you assert that Hart's argument is "decent?" How do you know it's "decent" if you can't understand the argument?

I happily admit that I haven't read all of the arguments of the anti-tax crowd, but I have read a few of the judicial opinions where those arguments are ably summarized and just as ably dissected. For instance, I don't need to read a book on why the 16th amendment was never ratified when I can read the seventh circuit's opinion in Miller v. US and get the gist of the argument. I don't have to read dozens of web pages on why income isn't taxable when I can read Coleman v. Commissioner and know that this position is, in the court's words, "preposterous."

I'm not "parrotting" the opinions of the courts: I've read their opinions and am swayed by their logic. When an opinion doesn't convince me, then I don't conceal my disagreement. In these cases, however, it is extremely easy to see that the courts are right and the tax protesters are wrong. If you are still undecided, then I suggest that you spend as much time on these pro-tax opinions as you seem to be doing on the anti-tax side.

0 Replies

It is said; a lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident, and victory goes to the poster who makes the next-to-last mistake.

Obstacles are those frightful things you see when you take your eyes off your goal, because if everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough. QED

0 Replies

Your first quote is Samuel Clemens.

The second is a butchered version of Arthur C. Clarke:

"New ideas pass through three periods: 1) It can't be done. 2) It probably can be done, but it's not worth doing. 3) I knew it was a good idea all along!"

0 Replies

parados wrote:

From Brushaber..

Quote:
In the first place this is shown by the fact that wherever (and there were a number of cases of that kind) a tax was levied directly on real estate or slaves because of ownership, it was treated as coming within the direct class and apportionment was provided for, while no instance of apportionment as to any other kind of tax is afforded. Again the situation is aptly illustrated by the various acts taxing incomes derived from property of every kind and nature which were enacted beginning in 1861, and lasting during what may be termed the Civil War period. It is not disputable that these latter taxing laws were classed under the head of excises, duties, and imposts because it was assumed that they were of that character inasmuch as, although putting a tax burden on income of every kind, including that derived from property real or personal, they were not taxes directly on property because of its ownership.
The income tax laws in the Civil war were on wages. While most wage earners were exempted because the average yearly wage was less than the $600 threshold for taxes. The tax was on wages which are also known as salaries.
http://www.tax.org/Museum/1861-1865.htm

Quote:
Taxes were withheld from the salaries of government employees as well as from dividends paid to corporations
A long document, read the paragraphs around what I quoted.

You should read the document... Read what you just quoted, and what you failed to quote around it. Government Employees and Dividends paid is hardly a tax on wages to the unskilled laborer. To the unskilled Laborer in 1862, $600 equates to $88,981.13 in 2005 Dollars(Source). Obviously, the Tax was intended for business, NOT the every day worker.(Even in 1909; $600 represented $56,819.28 which is clearly not your average laborer).

Let's quote a broader explanation from YOUR source. I'll italicize your butcher job to demonstrate how far off the mark your assessment really is:

Quote:

The act exempted businesses worth less than $600 from value added and receipts taxes. Taxes were withheld from the salaries of government employees as well as from dividends paid to corporations (the same method of collection later employed during World War II). In addition, the "sin" excise taxes imposed in the 1862 act were designed to fall most heavily on products purchased by the affluent. Thaddeus Stevens lauded the progressivity of the tax system:

"While the rich and the thrifty will be obliged to contribute largely from the abundance of their means . . . no burdens have been imposed on the industrious laborer and mechanic . . . The food of the poor is untaxed; and no one will be affected by the provisions of this bill whose living depends solely on his manual labor."

Does that look even remotely like the Income Tax that assesses every worker of consequence today?

parados wrote:

Also from Brushaber..

Quote:
The whole law was, however, declared unconstitutional on the ground that to permit it to thus operate would relieve real estate and invested personal property from taxation and 'would leave the burden of the tax to be borne by professions, trades, employments, or vacations; and in that way what was intended as a tax on capital would remain, in substance, a tax on occupations and labor'
Here they are talking about the 1894 law where it was ruled in Pollock that an income tax on profits from property was probably unconstitutional but the tax on occupations and labor would remain. How does labor get paid? Last time I checked they recieve a wage. If you have conflicting information please provide it.

No need. An alternate interpretation of yours will suffice. Brushaber was shot down because his income was indeed taxable, and no one is disputing that... including Hart. Neither is anyone disputing the unconstitutionality of Pollack, nor that the relief from apportionment was the intended consequence of the 16th. Who's income are we talking about, is the question. Neither Brushaber nor Pollack were focused on wages... and that being the case can hardly be said to have been argued from that perspective.

parados wrote:

Quote:
that the contention that the Amendment treats a tax on income as a direct tax although it is relieved from apportionment and is necessarily therefore not subject to the rule of uniformity as such rule only applies to taxes which are not direct, thus destroying the two great classifications which have been recognized and enforced from the beginning, is also wholly without foundation

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
A direct tax is only one on real estate. A wage is not real estate so it can't be a direct tax.

"Wages and salaries" still remains absent from consideration. Brushaber's Income was not wages, and the question remains the definition of Income. Much information points to Income being defined as substantial monies earned by means other than wages or salaries.

parados wrote:

I will forgive your simple text search for the word "wages" on your partying too hard. I hope you don't regret it this morning with a hangover.

I don't believe I am missing Hart's point. The treatise is entitled "Taxes on Wages and Salaries are Direct." If his point is not to argue that an income tax on wages is a direct tax then please tell us what his intent is.

Of course it is. We'll continue to talk past each other for as long as you consider Income and Wages synonymous. While we agree that's what it has come to mean; the debate is how it got that way... and the most common "precedents" quoted, don't even address it.

It can be argued that the $600 threshold inadvertently established a slippery slope for inflation to provide a means for Income Taxes to slide from a burden on the wealthy to a burden on the poor. But, it seems clear this was NOT Congress's intention. It would appear a tremendous error was made in using a hard figure ($600) out of convenience, rather than articulating their intention and producing a formula that would continue to mandate it.

Now factor in the establishment of the Federal Reserve (which isn't Federal and has no reserve), and examine the runaway inflation that it causes. Is it a coincidence that no sooner did Congress pass the 16th, with the supposedly protective barrier of $600 to shield the poor; their next order of business was to abolish the "classical gold standard" thereby removing the very protection intended by the $600 threshold? Clearly, there IS room for debate of Congress's intention.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
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.

You claim not to understand the argument, and yet you assert that Hart's argument is "decent?" How do you know it's "decent" if you can't understand the argument?

To what are you referring, Joe? Where did I "claim not to understand the argument"?

0 Replies

What a lovely red herring there Bill in discussing the average wages in 1860s.

You asked me to provide evidence that Brushaber could possibly say that an income tax on wages were an indirect tax. Clearly the income tax in 1862 was on wages. What the required wage was to pay the tax has no relevence to whether it was a direct or an indirect tax. Clearly the income tax on wages was an indirect tax as ruled by the courts when they said any type NOT including what Pollack and Brushaber were arguing were already indirect. Clearly the income tax on wages was an indirect tax when they mentioned the civil war income tax.

Since Hylton a direct tax has only meant a tax on real estate. No other possible meaning. Hart is blowing smoke up your ass when he argues that a tax on wages is a direct tax.

What does the Federal Reserve have to do with Hart's treatise? He never mentions it. Just another red herring on your part.

I think it is you that has no clue about Hart's point. I am curious as to what the hell you think his point is given the title of his treatise. Please enlighten us with your wisdom.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

What a lovely red herring there Bill in discussing the average wages in 1860s.

You asked me to provide evidence that Brushaber could possibly say that an income tax on wages were an indirect tax. Clearly the income tax in 1862 was on wages. What the required wage was to pay the tax has no relevence to whether it was a direct or an indirect tax. Clearly the income tax on wages was an indirect tax as ruled by the courts when they said any type NOT including what Pollack and Brushaber were arguing were already indirect. Clearly the income tax on wages was an indirect tax when they mentioned the civil war income tax.

Since Hylton a direct tax has only meant a tax on real estate. No other possible meaning. Hart is blowing smoke up your ass when he argues that a tax on wages is a direct tax.

What does the Federal Reserve have to do with Hart's treatise? He never mentions it. Just another red herring on your part.

I think it is you that has no clue about Hart's point. I am curious as to what the hell you think his point is given the title of his treatise. Please enlighten us with your wisdom.

If you wish me to ignore you, keep up with the idiotic posturing. Further, since it is the job of the SC to interpret the intention of Congress, my argument is hardly a Red Herring. $600 in 1862 represents a tiny fraction of Americans. The highest number ever filing returns under that law was less than 1% of the overall population. Clearly, it was intended to Tax the Rich, not the poor.

In the mean time, you clearly don't know what the hell you're talking about. From FindLaw about Hylton:

Quote:

Moreover, each of the judges advanced the opinion that the direct tax clause should be restricted to capitation taxes and taxes on land, or that at most, it might cover a general tax on the aggregate or mass of things that generally pervade all the States

Clearly, you flat out made this up:

parados wrote:

Since Hylton a direct tax has only meant a tax on real estate. No other possible meaning.

Since you have the backing of A2K's favorite attorney Joefromchicago, the IRS and the DOJ along with most of the Courts of the land in your favor, you shouldn't have to resort to making things up.:wink:
Furthermore, Pollock blows away your bogus assertion when Chief Justice Fuller neatly summarized:

Quote:

Obviously, Real Estate is not the only "possible meaning".
More pointedly, I offer:

Quote:

It should be noted that the Tax Act of 1864 was challenged several times. The Supreme Court unanimously supported the tax. After the war the tax was declared unconstitutional by the same court because it represented direct taxation on the citizenry which was not allowed under the constitution.

(Source)

The Tax Act of 1861 included the verbiage:

Quote:

The Revenue Act of 1861, formally cited as Act of August 5, 1861, Ch. XLV, 12 Stat. 292, was the first Federal income tax statute. The Act provided that "there shall be levied, collected, and paid, upon annual income of every person residing in the U.S. whether derived from any kind of property, or from any professional trade, employment, or vocation carried on in the United States or elsewhere, or from any source whatever."

1864 saw the threshold lowered from $800 to $600 and added a 3rd tier. This tax was clearly NOT just about property and was declared unconstitutional precisely because it represented a Direct Tax. Read the quote above to see how clear that is. THEN fast forward to 1909 and ask yourself why that same language wasn't used? I repeat; it was used and thoroughly rejected by Congress until after the verbiage "Direct Tax" was removed.

In an 1871 letter to the House of Representatives,

the commissioner of Internal Revenue wrote:

I regard the tax as the one of all others most obnoxious to the genius of our people, being inquisitorial in its nature, and dragging into public view an exposition of the most private pecuniary affairs of the citizen.

Such an unwilling exposition can only be compulsorily effected through a maintenance of the most expensive machinery; and both the nature of the tax and the means necessarily employed for its enforcement appear to be regarded by the better class of citizens with more and more disfavor from year to year.

The following year it was declared unconstitutional.

So, clearly, the 1861 Tax "upon annual income of every person residing in the U.S. whether derived from any kind of property, or from any professional trade, employment, or vocation carried on in the United States or elsewhere, or from any source whatever" was considered a Direct Tax... and now you want to pretend this isn't so? Again, if it was the intent of the 16th to re-create the original Income Tax unhindered by the constitution; why didn't they use the same clear language used 50 years earlier? Moreover; why was it rejected when debated in that form?

Perhaps Hart's blowing smoke up my ass about Direct Taxes, but that sure isn't what the history says. Perhaps it is the IRS blowing smoke up our collective ass about it NOT being a Direct Tax. Furthermore, the courts have, indeed, been all over the board over whether or not it's a Direct Tax, so don't go pretending Hart and I are the only ones who question it.
Again, in Brushaber, White made it clear that the 16th didn't effect Direct Taxes and the version of Income Tax from the 1860's, that included "every person residing in the U.S" was repealed precisely because it was a Direct Tax that didn't follow the rules regulating Direct Taxes.

0 Replies

Oh, another factoid from FindLaw about your ridiculous assertion about Real Estate: :wink:

Quote:

Then, almost one hundred years after the Hylton case, the famous case of Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. 1748 arose under the Income Tax Act of 1894. 1749 Undertaking to correct ''a century of error,'' the Court held, by a vote of five-to-four, that a tax on income from property was a direct tax within the meaning of the Constitution and hence void because not apportioned according to the census.

Not only does this demonstrate the falsity of your claim; it would appear that a hundred year gap between a faulty assumption and it being overturned is not unheard of. Today, of course, the SC wouldn't be hearing Pollock, because lower courts would have long since ruled the argument "frivolous" on account of the long accepted Hylton decision... and assessed additional fines and penalties accordingly. Today, the "system" protects itself from such inquiries... and it has people like you and Joe to announce how ridiculous it is to question anything that old. Razz

0 Replies

NY TIMES: Saying Income Tax Is Illegal

Q. WHAT DO THESE MEN HAVE IN COMMON?

David Bosset
Bosset Marketing Partners, Inc. (Florida)
Nick Jesson
No Time Delay Electronics, Inc. (California)
Dick Simkanin
Arrow Custom Plastics, Inc. (Texas)
Al Thompson
Cencal Aviation Products, Inc. (California)
Leonard Roberto
Batavia Enclosures, Inc. (New York)

A. THEY ARE ALL EMPLOYERS WHO HAVE STOPPED WITHHOLDING TAXES FROM THEIR WORKERS' PAYCHECKS

They are part of a growing number of employers and workers who believe that:

1.THERE IS NO LAW THAT REQUIRES WORKERS, AS U.S. CITIZENS
EARNING THEIR MONEY FROM DOMESTIC COMPANIES, TO PAY INCOME OR
EMPLOYMENT TAXES; NOR TO HAVE THOSE TAXES WITHHELD;

2.THE 16TH AMENDMENT (THE "INCOME TAX AMENDMENT") WAS
FRAUDULENTLY DECLARED TO BE RATIFIED BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE IN 1913.

Each of the employers has come to these conclusions with the aid of Certified Public Accountants, attorneys and/or tax researchers.
In 1999, upon consultation with tax researcher Thurston Bell, David Bosset, a former tax consultant himself, submitted a nine page legal memorandum to the IRS, arguing that he had erred in 1996 and 1997 in filing 528 W-2s and 1099s, which reported that
workers had earned taxable income. Attached were 528 W-2s and 1099s, corrected to "0."

The local IRS office passed the matter up to the Conflict Resolution Branch, which determined that Mr. Bosset was correct. The IRS returned the money that Mr. Bosset had withheld from the paychecks of his employees. Soon after, other employers around the country stopped withholding, including those identified above.

Each employer has respectfully presented these arguments to the IRS (and to their representatives in Congress), asking the government to review the results of their research and to show them if they are mistaken. The IRS DID NOT RESPOND, nor did the others.

IRS SUDDENLY THREATENS "CRACKDOWN"

The IRS made public announcements that it would soon conduct a crackdown on dozens of employers who have stopped withholding taxes from the money they pay their workers. The announcement apparently was spurred on by articles in the
New York Times in November that called the employers "tax cheats" and warned that the trend could spread and cause the tax system to collapse.

The Times quoted IRS Deputy Commissioner Dale Hart as saying that the employers' legal rationale is frivolous, has no legal authority, and has been thoroughly rejected by the courts. The employers, of course, do not see their arguments as frivolous, and are unaware of any court case that has addressed or rejected them. Hart did not offer any code section that would apply

The employers all followed IRS administrative procedures and cite chapter and verse of the laws and regulations that allow them to stop withholding. The IRS, after due consideration, refunded money the employers had withheld from the paychecks of their employees. This was not the result of a low-level clerical error, but was based on numerous exchanges through the IRS's Problem Resolution program.

At least one of the employers named in the Times article has written a letter to the IRS Commissioner requesting a meeting to discuss the matter. Excerpts from that letter are printed below.

Nick Jesson's (NTD Electronics') demand for dialogue was UNANSWERED by the IRS, so he is now going public. The IRS's failure to respond follows a series of attempts to get government officials, including the IRS, Congress and the White House, to participate in conferences to publicly explain findings and refute allegations by numerous tax researchers and former IRS agents.

Tax researchers recognize that the actions of the employers are supported by provisions in the Tax Code. For example: A withholding agent is only required to withhold from foreigners (Code Sections 7701, 1461, 1441-3). Tax researchers have noted for years that a statement of citizenship given to an employer/withholding agent precludes the withholding of tax, as there is no authority in the Code to withhold money from a citizen or resident of the U.S. unless that person authorizes it. If the worker submits a statement of citizenship, the employer, as a withholding agent, is relieved of duty to withhold income taxes, since those apply to non-resident aliens.

Tax researchers have asserted there is no law that a U.S. citizen must have a social security number (SSN) or that an employer must have an employer identification number (EIN), or that either of them must participate in the social security program
(i.e., employment or FICA taxes under Subtitle C). An employer who does participate in the social security program is required to give a W-4 form to a worker, but is not required to get it back, and the worker is not required to fill it out and return it, unless thatworker wants to participate in the social security program.

Absent a W-4signed by the worker, an employer is not authorized by law to withhold and submit to the IRS money from the worker for employment taxes. Further, a person without a SSN number would have no taxable income. All this has been well-documented and
verified by numerous letters from any number of Social Security Administration officials.

Section 1441(a) and (b) state that interest, dividends, rent, salaries, wages, profits, etc., are "income" when received on behalf of, or paid to, a non-resident alien or other foreign entity. And courts have ruled that profits of corporations are "income." But there is no provision in the Code stating that receipts of citizens or residents of the country are "income." Thus, a citizen's own receipts are not "gross income" and are not, therefore, "taxable income" under the Code. Income refers to property derived from activity involving the exercise of a government-granted privilege.

Section 61 of the Code has the definition of gross income as "all income from whatever source derived," and then a list of 15 "items." Tax researchers have recognized that the "items" listed are not the same as "sources" of income that are taxable.

The sources are actually to be found in a more remote part of the Code at Section 861 (or section 1.861-8(f)(1) of the regulations). They consist of five "foreign" sources. In previous versions of the Code, the relationship and distinction between the "items" and the "sources" was not disguised or separated by distance in the Code. This part of the Code is an important aspect of the position taken by the employers who have stopped withholding.

The bottom line is quite frankly, federal officials, who make salaries way over $160,000 a year with platinum benefits for life after a few years in public office, do not want anything to do with an investigation that will reveal the 16th Amendment was never "legally ratified" by the States, or only foreigners working in the U.S., or U.S. citizens working abroad, are legally required to pay federal income taxes.

If the Federal Government acknowledges in any way that the ratification was a fraud, the Federal Government would have to shut down.
The income tax is the big, fat piggy bank that pays their big salaries and premium benefits, and for all those bloated bureaucracies sucking the lifeblood out of America's taxpayers.

All hail Bill, the voice of America.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

parados wrote:
What a lovely red herring there Bill in discussing the average wages in 1860s.

You asked me to provide evidence that Brushaber could possibly say that an income tax on wages were an indirect tax. Clearly the income tax in 1862 was on wages. What the required wage was to pay the tax has no relevence to whether it was a direct or an indirect tax. Clearly the income tax on wages was an indirect tax as ruled by the courts when they said any type NOT including what Pollack and Brushaber were arguing were already indirect. Clearly the income tax on wages was an indirect tax when they mentioned the civil war income tax.

Since Hylton a direct tax has only meant a tax on real estate. No other possible meaning. Hart is blowing smoke up your ass when he argues that a tax on wages is a direct tax.

What does the Federal Reserve have to do with Hart's treatise? He never mentions it. Just another red herring on your part.

I think it is you that has no clue about Hart's point. I am curious as to what the hell you think his point is given the title of his treatise. Please enlighten us with your wisdom.
If you wish me to ignore you, keep up with the idiotic posturing. Further, since it is the job of the SC to interpret the intention of Congress, my argument is hardly a Red Herring. $600 in 1862 represents a tiny fraction of Americans. The highest number ever filing returns under that law was less than 1% of the overall population. Clearly, it was intended to Tax the Rich, not the poor.

Idiotic posturing? You claimed I have no clue as to Hart's point. I have asked you nicely to tell me where I have it wrong. Instead of answering how I got it wrong you accuse me of idiotic posturing. Tell us the point of Hart since I don't have a clue. Be specific so idiots like me can understand it.

Since it is the job of the USSC to interpret the intention of Congress. Please provide a ruling where they did declare the 1862 income tax to be anything close to what you are proposing. On a side note tell us if you agree that only the rich should be taxed.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

In the mean time, you clearly don't know what the hell you're talking about. From FindLaw about Hylton:

Quote:
Moreover, each of the judges advanced the opinion that the direct tax clause should be restricted to capitation taxes and taxes on land, or that at most, it might cover a general tax on the aggregate or mass of things that generally pervade all the States
Clearly, you flat out made this up:

parados wrote:
Since Hylton a direct tax has only meant a tax on real estate. No other possible meaning.
Since you have the backing of A2K's favorite attorney Joefromchicago, the IRS and the DOJ along with most of the Courts of the land in your favor, you shouldn't have to resort to making things up.:wink:

I was parphrasing Brushaber where it says..

Quote:

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

When you go read the rulings in Hylton they include capitation and property.

Quote:

Furthermore, Pollock blows away your bogus assertion when Chief Justice Fuller neatly summarized:

Quote:
Obviously, Real Estate is not the only "possible meaning".

Yes, the court did rule that in Pollack. I have said as much. I also pointed out that Brushaber points out that the 16th amendment deals with Pollack. Pollack says nothing about income from wages and salaries as being a direct tax. It only says income tax on income from property is.

Quote:

More pointedly, I offer:

Quote:
It should be noted that the Tax Act of 1864 was challenged several times. The Supreme Court unanimously supported the tax. After the war the tax was declared unconstitutional by the same court because it represented direct taxation on the citizenry which was not allowed under the constitution.

(Source)

The Tax Act of 1861 included the verbiage:

Quote:
The Revenue Act of 1861, formally cited as Act of August 5, 1861, Ch. XLV, 12 Stat. 292, was the first Federal income tax statute. The Act provided that "there shall be levied, collected, and paid, upon annual income of every person residing in the U.S. whether derived from any kind of property, or from any professional trade, employment, or vocation carried on in the United States or elsewhere, or from any source whatever."

1864 saw the threshold lowered from $800 to $600 and added a 3rd tier. This tax was clearly NOT just about property and was declared unconstitutional precisely because it represented a Direct Tax. Read the quote above to see how clear that is. THEN fast forward to 1909 and ask yourself why that same language wasn't used? I repeat; it was used and thoroughly rejected by Congress until after the verbiage "Direct Tax" was removed.

In an 1871 letter to the House of Representatives,
the commissioner of Internal Revenue wrote:
I regard the tax as the one of all others most obnoxious to the genius of our people, being inquisitorial in its nature, and dragging into public view an exposition of the most private pecuniary affairs of the citizen.

Such an unwilling exposition can only be compulsorily effected through a maintenance of the most expensive machinery; and both the nature of the tax and the means necessarily employed for its enforcement appear to be regarded by the better class of citizens with more and more disfavor from year to year.
The following year it was declared unconstitutional.

You really shouldn't make things up in the same post where you accuse others of doing that. (I realize you got this from your source and didn't bother to check it.)

There was no USSC ruling on the 1862 income tax in 1871 or 1872. The tax was repealed in 1872 for political reasons. In 1881 the tax was ruled on by the USSC in a 7-0 decision where they rejected the claim that the income tax in 1865 was a direct tax. Springer v US

Quote:

Our conclusions are, that direct taxes, within the meaning of the Constitution, are only capitation taxes, as expressed in that instrument, and taxes on real estate; and that the tax of which the plaintiff in error complains is within the category of an excise or duty.

Against the considerations, in one scale, in favor of these
propositions, what has been placed in the other, as a counterpoise? Our answer is, certainly nothing of such weight, in our judgment, as to require any special reply.

Quote:

So, clearly, the 1861 Tax "upon annual income of every person residing in the U.S. whether derived from any kind of property, or from any professional trade, employment, or vocation carried on in the United States or elsewhere, or from any source whatever" was considered a Direct Tax... and now you want to pretend this isn't so?

I am not the one pretending. Cite the case that declared the 1861 tax a direct tax.

Quote:

Again, if it was the intent of the 16th to re-create the original Income Tax unhindered by the constitution; why didn't they use the same clear language used 50 years earlier? Moreover; why was it rejected when debated in that form?

The 1861 tax was found to be in indirect tax in Springer. Your source was referring to Pollack which is one year after the 1894 income tax.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

To what are you referring, Joe? Where did I "claim not to understand the argument"?

"I realize I am hopelessly over matched, insofar as I can not summarily argue the totality of the point..."

Furthermore, your arguments show a marked lack of familiarity with the controlling law. Now, of course, I don't expect everyone on these boards to have a lawyer's knowledge of the law, but I would expect someone who is criticizing a law to demonstrate some understanding of the relevant legal concepts. You, however, have shown quite the opposite. For instance:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Today, of course, the SC wouldn't be hearing Pollock, because lower courts would have long since ruled the argument "frivolous" on account of the long accepted Hylton decision.

No, that's not correct. Today, the supreme court wouldn't hear Pollock for the same reason that it wouldn't hear Dred Scott: because a subsequent constitutional amendment effectively overruled it.

Furthermore, you said:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

It should be noted that the Tax Act of 1864 was challenged several times. The Supreme Court unanimously supported the tax. After the war the tax was declared unconstitutional by the same court because it represented direct taxation on the citizenry which was not allowed under the constitution.

I'm not sure if those are your words or if you're quoting one of the tax protesters, but you're wrong: the Civil War income tax was never declared unconstitutional. Indeed, the supreme court specifically said that it was constitutional in Springer v. US (FindLaw - reg. req'd). Even a judicial cipher like Noah Swayne could see that an income tax was not a "direct tax," as that term was understood by the framers of the constitution:

Swayne, J. wrote:

Our conclusions are, that direct taxes, within the meaning of the Constitution, are only capitation taxes, as expressed in that instrument, and taxes on real estate; and that the tax of which the plaintiff in error complains is within the category of an excise or duty.

Your claim that the Civil War tax was declared unconstitutional, therefore, betrays a serious lack of understanding regarding the case law and a startling degree of credulousness regarding the claims of the anti-taxers.

0 Replies

Tryagain wrote:

"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on."
- Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)

"A lie gets halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."

-- Samuel Clemens, 1835-1910

Source

0 Replies

Has the IRS successfully prosecuted anyone under this? Yes, in April 2004 an employer from Texas was sentenced to 7 years in prison and ordered to pay $300,000+ in restitution. I still say file, don't file, you run the risk.
It is your decision. I do know the IRS has a whole team of investigators that actively seek out non-filers.

Well, that is all I have to say on the matter except, Setanta maybe you grinned today. I did not ask any questions.

0 Replies

Tryagain wrote:

NY TIMES: Saying Income Tax Is Illegal

Q. WHAT DO THESE MEN HAVE IN COMMON?

David Bosset
Bosset Marketing Partners, Inc. (Florida)
Nick Jesson
No Time Delay Electronics, Inc. (California)
Dick Simkanin
Arrow Custom Plastics, Inc. (Texas)
Al Thompson
Cencal Aviation Products, Inc. (California)
Leonard Roberto
Batavia Enclosures, Inc. (New York)

A. THEY ARE ALL EMPLOYERS WHO HAVE STOPPED WITHHOLDING TAXES FROM THEIR WORKERS' PAYCHECKS

B. They have all been indicted or lost in court on this issue.

Bosset ruling
Jesson indictment
Simkanin convicted of 29 counts
Thompson's Conviction mentioned

0 Replies

Nice rejoinder Parados:

Now, that's not the same Nick Jesson who the IRS ran to the C-FTB and got them to try to frame Nick by getting his former accountant to lie about him, after it had been discovered that she was an embezzler, is it?

Yeah, it is. What was the result?

Tuesday, April 04, 2006 6:22 PM
Subject: IS News --Bad News-Nick Jesson Sentenced

(I really hate this part of the news)

Tax Protester Is Sentenced to Prison George Henry 'Nick' Jesson of
Fountain Valley had disputed the legality of withholding personal
income taxes. By Jean O. Pasco, Times Staff Writer April 4, 2006

A nationally known anti-tax crusader who ran for California governor
in 2002 must serve 27 months in prison for tax fraud, a federal
judge ordered Monday.

George Henry "Nick" Jesson, 55, of Fountain Valley also was ordered
by U.S. District Judge Percy Anderson in Los Angeles to pay
$215,454 in restitution to the federal government. He was taken
into custody after sentencing.

"The constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please. It should be remembered, as an axiom of eternal truth in politics, that whatever power in any government is independent, is absolute also; in theory only, at first, while the spirit of the people is up, but in practice, as fast as that relaxes. Independence can be trusted nowhere but with the people in mass. They are inherently independent of all but moral law."

~ Thomas Jefferson, letter to Judge Spencer Roane, September 6, 1819. "The Writings of Thomas Jefferson," edited by Andrew A. Lipscomb, vol. 15, p. 213 (1904).

0 Replies

Only a minute now... more later...

joefromchicago wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
To what are you referring, Joe? Where did I "claim not to understand the argument"?

"I realize I am hopelessly over matched, insofar as I can not summarily argue the totality of the point..."

Joe, that means exactly what I explained earlier. Since you refuse to hear the argument in it's entirety, I'm forced to feed it to you peicemail which isn't nearly as effective.

joefromchicago wrote:

Furthermore, your arguments show a marked lack of familiarity with the controlling law. Now, of course, I don't expect everyone on these boards to have a lawyer's knowledge of the law, but I would expect someone who is criticizing a law to demonstrate some understanding of the relevant legal concepts. You, however, have shown quite the opposite. For instance:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Today, of course, the SC wouldn't be hearing Pollock, because lower courts would have long since ruled the argument "frivolous" on account of the long accepted Hylton decision.

No, that's not correct. Today, the supreme court wouldn't hear Pollock for the same reason that it wouldn't hear Dred Scott: because a subsequent constitutional amendment effectively overruled it.

Nonsense Joe. Hylton was every bit as accepted as the 16th up until Pollock. Even then it was only 5 to 4 and the dissenters were bitter about it.

joefromchicago wrote:

Furthermore, you said:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
It should be noted that the Tax Act of 1864 was challenged several times. The Supreme Court unanimously supported the tax. After the war the tax was declared unconstitutional by the same court because it represented direct taxation on the citizenry which was not allowed under the constitution.

I'm not sure if those are your words

Yes, you are or should be. I linked the source.

joefromchicago wrote:

or if you're quoting one of the tax protesters,

Neither, the Source, is clearly NOT from a Tax Protester nor did I make it up and therefore your sighting it as evidence of my lack of understanding is offensive. Especially after your partner here accused me of making it up... all despite the clearly labeled Source. It's tiresome enough trying to defend an unlikely proposition, without have to wade through the myriad of insults and condescension.

joefromchicago wrote:

but you're wrong: the Civil War income tax was never declared unconstitutional. Indeed, the supreme court specifically said that it was constitutional in Springer v. US (FindLaw - reg. req'd).

Then my source was wrong. I'll look into it later.

joefromchicago wrote:

Even a judicial cipher like Noah Swayne could see that an income tax was not a "direct tax," as that term was understood by the framers of the constitution:

Swayne, J. wrote:
Our conclusions are, that direct taxes, within the meaning of the Constitution, are only capitation taxes, as expressed in that instrument, and taxes on real estate; and that the tax of which the plaintiff in error complains is within the category of an excise or duty.

Your claim that the Civil War tax was declared unconstitutional, therefore, betrays a serious lack of understanding regarding the case law and a startling degree of credulousness regarding the claims of the anti-taxers.

More faulty conclusions on your part. A serious lack of understanding? In your obvious desire to condescend, you've decided to ignore the fact that I sourced my information and had no reason to verify it as the source is certainly not biased towards tax protesters. In yours and Parados's bias against anyone who even listens to them, however, it seems you will stop at nothing to discredit, I submit, to your own discredit. If I'm supposed to chase every quote I see back to it's source, why did you explain that you don't need to? And why in this exact case was it too much to simply click where you saw the mysterious blue word: Source?

I'm pressed for time, so I'll have to get back to this later.

0 Replies

Is U.S. income tax invalid?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know