Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Current Events  > Courageous Attorney Fighting The IRS      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Smjle
Joined: 9/19/2006
Msg: 51
Courageous Attorney Fighting The IRSPage 3 of 8    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8)
All these arguments are interesting, but let’s return to the title of the thread. A courageous Attorney fighting the IRS because there is no law making American citizens liable to pay taxes on wages and because there is no law requiring anyone to file a 1040. If such law existed, someone would have pointed them out.

Wages are not income:

Stapler v U.S., 21 F Supp 737 AT 739 (1937): "Income within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment and the Revenue Act, means 'gain'... and in such connection 'Gain' means profit...proceeding from property, severed from capital, however invested or employed, and coming in, received, or drawn by the taxpayer, for his separate use, benefit and disposal... Income is not a wage or compensation for any type of labor."

Oliver v. Halstead 86 S.E. Rep 2nd 859 (1955): "There is a clear distinction between `profit' and `wages', or a compensation for labor. Compensation for labor (wages) cannot be regarded as profit within the meaning of the law. The word `profit', as ordinarily used, means the gain made upon any business or investment -- a different thing altogether from the mere compensation for labor."

Evens v Gore, 253 U.S. 245 (1920): "After further consideration, we adhere to that view and accordingly hold that the Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize or support the tax in question. " (A tax on salary)

McCutchin v Commissioner of IRS, 159 F2d: "The 16th Amendment does not authorize laying of an income tax upon one person for the income derived solely from another."[wages]

Olk v. United States, February 18, 1975, Las Vegas, Nevada."Tips are gifts and therefore are not taxable."

Central Illinois Publishing Service v. U.S., 435 U.S. 21 (1978): "Decided cases have made the distinction between wages and income and have refused to equate the two."

Evens v Gore, 253 U.S. 245 (1920): "After further consideration, we adhere to that view and accordingly hold that the Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize or support the tax in question. " (A tax on salary)

Olk v. United States, February 18, 1975, Las Vegas, Nevada."Tips are gifts and therefore are not taxable."

Conner v US, 303 F Supp 1187 Federal District Court, Houston. "..whatever may constitute income, therefore, must have the essential feature of gain to the recipient. This was true at the time of Eisner V Macomber, it was true under section 22(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1938, and it is likewise true under Section 61(a) of the IRS code of 1954. If there is not gain, there is not income, CONGRESS HAS TAXED INCOME, NOT COMPENSATION"

Simms v. Ahrens, 271 SW 720 (1925): "An income tax is neither a property tax nor a tax on occupations of common right, but is an EXCISE tax...The legislature may declare as 'privileged' and tax as such for state revenue, those pursuits not matters of common right, but it has no power to declare as a 'privilege' and tax for revenue purposes, occupations that are of common right."

Laureldale Cemetery Assoc. v. Matthews, 345 Pa. 239 (1946): "Reasonable compensation for labor or services rendered is not profit"

Congress has the power to tax wages; however, if they do tax wages, the tax must be apportioned per Article 1, Section 2 and Section 9 of the Constitution. The Sixteenth Amendment did not change that because the provisions have not been repealed. The Supreme Court made that clear in numerous rulings. In Brashaber, Chief Justice White said the amendment did not change the constitution by giving congress any new taxing powers. The he followed that statement with four or more statement that direct taxes must be apportioned with reasons ranging from it would violate the requirements of Article 1, Section 2 to it would violate the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.

BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)
240 U.S. 1 Argued October 14 and 15, 1915. Decided January 24, 1916.
Snips from Mr Chief Justice White:

…the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation; that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes. And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption *** if a tax is levied under its assumed authority which does not partake of the characteristics exacted by the Amendment, it is outside of the Amendment, and is void as a direct tax in the general constitutional sense because not apportioned. *** the constitutionality of the law must be tested by the general provisions of the Constitution as to taxation, and thus again the tax is void for want of apportionment.

But it clearly results that the proposition and the contentions [240 U.S. 1, 12] under it, if acceded to, would cause one provision of the Constitution to destroy another; that is, they would result in bringing the provisions of the Amendment exempting a direct tax from apportionment into irreconcilable conflict with the general requirement that all direct taxes be apportioned. Moreover, the tax authorized by the Amendment, being direct, would not come under the rule of uniformity applicable under the Constitution to other than direct taxes, and thus it would come to pass that the result of the Amendment would be to authorize a particular direct tax not subject either to apportionment or to the rule of geographical uniformity, thus giving power to impose a different tax in one state or states than was levied in another state or states. This result, instead of simplifying the situation and making clear the limitations on the taxing power, which obviously the Amendment must have been intended to accomplish, would create radical and destructive changes in our constitutional system and multiply confusion.

But let us by a demonstration of the error of the fundamental proposition as to the significance of the Amendment dispel the confusion necessarily arising from the arguments deduced from it.

That the authority conferred upon Congress by 8 of article 1 'to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises' is exhaustive and embraces every conceivable power of taxation has never been questioned***. Again, it has never moreover been questioned that the conceded complete and all-embracing taxing power was subject, so far as they were respectively applicable, to limitations resulting from the requirements of art. 1, 8, cl. 1, that 'all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States,' and to the limitations of art I., 2, cl. 3, that 'direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states,' and of art 1, 9, cl. 4, that 'no capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration hereinbefore directed to be taken.' In fact, the two great subdivisions embracing the complete and perfect delegation of the power to tax and the two correlated limitations as to such power were thus aptly stated by Mr. Chief Justice Fuller in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & T. Co. 157 U. S. supra, at page 557: 'In the matter of taxation, the Constitution recognizes the two great classes of direct and indirect taxes, and lays down two rules by which their imposition must be governed, namely: The rule of apportionment as to direct taxes, and the rule of uniformity as to duties, imposts, and excises.

The court, fully recognizing in the passage which we have previously quoted the allembracing character of the two great classifications, including, on the one hand, direct taxes subject to apportionment, and on the other, excises, duties, and imposts subject to uniformity, held the law to be unconstitutional in substance for these reasons:

This is the text of the Amendment:

'The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.'

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.

So far as the due process clause of the 5th Amendment is relied upon, it suffices to say that there is no basis for such reliance, since it is equally well settled that such clause is not a limitation upon the taxing power conferred upon Congress by the Constitution; in other words, that the Constitution does not conflict with itself by conferring, upon the one hand, a taxing power, and taking the same power away, on the other, by the limitations of the due process clause

Helvering v Edison Bros. Stores, 133 F2d 575 (1943): "The Treasury cannot by interpretive regulations, make income of that which is not income within the meaning of the revenue acts of Congress, nor can Congress, without apportionment, tax as income that which is not income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment."

Butchers' Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746 (1883). One of the most eloquent opinions ever delivered by the Court..
"Among these unalienable rights, as proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant, the right any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give them their highest enjoyment...It has been well said that, THE PROPERTY WHICH EVERY MAN HAS IS HIS OWN LABOR, AS IT IS THE ORIGINAL FOUNDATION OF ALL OTHER PROPERTY SO IT IS THE MOST SACRED AND INVIOLABLE..."
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 52
Courageous Attorney Fighting The IRS
Posted: 4/1/2007 11:10:38 AM
If your going to simply cut and paste from tax protester websites you might at least place it in quotes and credit the source rather than trying to make it appear as your own.

Are you not able to find anything that is relevant to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as it exists? Or at least more than one case which wasn't overturned by a higher court or superceded by the law as it exists?
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 53
Courageous Attorney Fighting The IRS
Posted: 4/1/2007 4:19:36 PM
Personally, I think you have put a little too much tinfoil in your hats.

Possibly, not enough unless you're referencing the neurological degeneration associated with aluminum (or aluminium, take your pick) toxicity.

It certainly is a viable consideration given that the arguments have a certain circularity (or would self-propagating be more appropriate?).

It seems that as each argument is debunked in turn the cycle begins from the beginning (to wit: no law> show the law> no definition> show the definition> case law> debunk the case law> conspiracy> debunk the conspiracy> go back to no law ad infinitum). There seems to be, at the very least, a short-term memory problem involved.
 Smjle
Joined: 9/19/2006
Msg: 54
Courageous Attorney Fighting The IRS
Posted: 4/1/2007 7:41:15 PM
Of course the IRS shills cannot show the law. After all, neither could IRS commissioner Everson.

What U.S. law requires Americans to pay income taxes? Watch the short video as IRS Commissioner Everson evades that direct question from the New York Times tax reporter David Kay Johnston.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=6Xb3pKzWikk&feature=PlayList&p=BDD252296FB2DAC0&index=5
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 55
Courageous Attorney Fighting The IRS
Posted: 4/1/2007 7:51:30 PM
Of course the IRS shills cannot show the law. After all, neither could IRS commissioner Everson.

Boy, did I ever call that one right!

I know some really good memory tricks and substitutes that I used to use with TBI cases who had lost thier short-term memory.

And the cycle begins again.

edit: did you miss the very last thing said in the video before it was cut off, the reference to Title 26, or do you just choose to ignore it?
 Smjle
Joined: 9/19/2006
Msg: 56
Courageous Attorney Fighting The IRS
Posted: 4/2/2007 1:55:56 AM
At this point I'd almost accept a research paper from a law student. Something; anything.
No you wouldn't; you don't even accept all the rulings I provided from the United States Supreme Court.

Smjle said in msg #98: * * * And Smjle, in msg #71:
The truth hurts doesn't it. The law is technically correct and that is why you cannot find any law requiring Americans to pay an income tax on wages and why you cannot find any law requiring anyone to file a 1040. Instead you are forced to resort to strawmen arguments and name calling.
 Engr
Joined: 3/12/2007
Msg: 57
Courageous Attorney Fighting The IRS
Posted: 4/2/2007 8:53:57 AM
As to all the quotes you posted, post cites to the actual cases and not an obscure sentence or two so we can read the cases and follow to their outcome.

That is just what Smjle did. He cited the cases. I could find several of the entire Supreme Court rulings he cited on the internet and certainly the cases can be found in any law library.

Smjle has proven his position and has blown the shills out of the water. They can’t give the law that makes people liable for the income tax and they cannot refute all the evidence he provides that wages are not income. Therefore, all they are left with is name calling, red herrings, lies, and misrepresentations.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 59
Courageous Attorney Fighting The IRS
Posted: 4/2/2007 1:11:44 PM
Here you have hit on the fullest explanation of the problem

... any taxpayer of competent mentality can assert as his defense to charges of statutory willfulness the proposition that the wage he receives for his labor is not income ...

The law has been demonstrated, the validity of the 16th Amendment demonstrated, the case law that has resulted in numerous of thier bretheren being imprisoned for failing to observe the law and still they cannot understand the truth.

The very circularity of the argument questions the competance of the analysis and yet it continues, ad infinitum.
 Smjle
Joined: 9/19/2006
Msg: 60
Courageous Attorney Fighting The IRS
Posted: 4/2/2007 1:31:56 PM
A couple of long-winded posts; however, they can point to no law requiring the payment of the income tax on wages and all they can say is, "If you don't pay, you go to jail."

That's something I've said all along. Anyone that has looked at the situation knows that the IRS with the aid of the Star Chamber Courts are illegally applying the law in violation of the Constitution, the rulings of the Supreme Court, and the actual law itself .

Until a sufficient number of Americans learn that for the last eighty years our government has been lying to us and demand that they stay within the confines of the Constitution or at least until the juries are informed and stop convicting innocent people, things will not change. In fact, in my opinion, things will only get worse as we lose more freedoms and fall further into a police state.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 62
Courageous Attorney Fighting The IRS
Posted: 4/2/2007 2:04:18 PM

no law requiring the payment of the income tax on wages

Say that to your self three times, click your heels together and maybe it will come true.

If you ever acquire the moral courage and fortitude to act on your belief you can use the line to comfort yourself as IRS stormtroopers lead you away in handcuffs after the Star Chamber conspirators sentence you to prison.

Really, if your argument is so convincing and righteous you should have no difficulty in prevailing in court, after all, that is the way the system works right? The innocent go free?

Oh, wait, I forgot it is all a conspiracy of fraud by the Star Chamber courts acting on the bidding of the international bankers (are you sure you can't find room in there for the evil, reptiloid aliens controlling the government?).

Below is the text of an email I sent to the IRS:

Dear Sir/Ma'am;

I have recently been involved in a lengthy debate with a group of tax protesters over the legality of income taxes on wage-earners.

In the course of this debate I have frequently been referred to as an "IRS shill".

As I already carry the title of "spokesperson" for the IRS I was wondering if it may be possible for me to be paid for the considerable time and effort I have invested in this discussion.

If you are amenable to this arrangement I would prefer, if possible, to be paid in the equivalent in $CAN either through bank transfer or direct deposit.

Should I receive a positive response I will forward the necessary account information and a detailed invoice for the hours spent in research, composing replies as well as a pro-rated amount for the cost of Internet access.

I look forward to your reply.

Sincerely,

(name)
 Smjle
Joined: 9/19/2006
Msg: 63
Courageous Attorney Fighting The IRS
Posted: 4/2/2007 5:49:14 PM
Fine show gentlemen

Hoop, that okay because I recognize them for the shills they are. They can't point out any law requiring Americans earning wages to pay an income tax so they lie and claim they did. Of course a child can see they didn't. They cannot point out any law requiring anyone to file a 1040. However, they lie and claim they did.

Nor can they refute the Constitution and all the Supreme Court cases I pointed out proving that any tax on wages, to be legally required, would have to be apportioned. They just go off on the deep end and start foming-at-the-mouth, and resort to posting nonsense and name calling.

However, any intelligent person reading these threads will know who is logical and truthful, and it will not be them. The IRS shills have an agenda and their agenda it to confuse and hide the truth from the American public. Two things all IRS shills have in common is stating 'the courts have ruled when there is no law to support their position' and 'claiming the truth is a conspiracy theory'.
 Smjle
Joined: 9/19/2006
Msg: 64
Courageous Attorney Fighting The IRS
Posted: 4/2/2007 7:55:19 PM
Exactly how hard do you think it would be for the constitution to get changed? This is not a controversial issue, by my count all but 7 states assess their own tax on income. So what reason is there for the government to not change the constitution on this issue? If they had to, there certainly is the support.

I don't know how hard it would be to get 38 states to approve a constitutional amendment to repeal Article 1, Section 2 & 9 and add a provision to permit the Federal Government to tax wages. If they do, then it would be lawful. Our Constitution is written to be based on the rule of law; not of men.

However, your claim that something is justified because, although illegal, it could be or might be made legal is to invite lawlessness. There is no law that allows a direct unapportioned tax on wages. If there was such a law, one of you people would have pointed it out, instead of resorting to making 4 pages of specious arguments, plus lies, and name calling.

Edit: Thank you Realblonde. I support the fair tax. I believe the sales tax would be uniform and, since it's avoidable, it would be an excise tax and therefore lawful. Also, most citizens would not be required to calculate the tax or keep a lot of records.
 Smjle
Joined: 9/19/2006
Msg: 65
Courageous Attorney Fighting The IRS
Posted: 4/3/2007 4:41:15 AM
Your own admission that the income tax law is "technically correct".

The income tax laws are technically correct because they do not apply to most Americans. They apply to certain government workers, some non-resident aliens, and corporate profits.

Just like most agents for the IRS, these people have no integrity. They offer nothing except lies they repeat over and over, strawmen arguments, and name calling.

Where is the law making anyone liable for paying an unapportioned tax on wages? Where is the law requiring anyone to file a form 1040?

Almost five pages of garbage and not once have any of these people answered the above two questions, or else they give meaningless answers such as, “US Code Title 26, section 1: Section 1. Tax imposed”. Of course those ten words don’t make anyone liable for any tax, let alone a tax on wages. He wants the reader to assume there is more. The same sort of tricks the writers of the tax code use to mislead the American public. Another posted a section of the law and then added words not in the law as if though it was part of the law.

So what law requires anyone to file a form 1040 and where is law making most Americans liable for the income tax? We are still waiting for an answer.

EDIT:
…it relieves the government of the requirement of apportionment for income tax under the constitutional law doctrine of implied repeal.

Another false statement (they just make up stuff) and in conflict with the ruling of the US Supreme Court in BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1 (1916) where Chief Justice White stated:

…the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation; that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes. And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption *** if a tax is levied under its assumed authority which does not partake of the characteristics exacted by the Amendment, it is outside of the Amendment, and is void as a direct tax in the general constitutional sense because not apportioned. *** the constitutionality of the law must be tested by the general provisions of the Constitution as to taxation, and thus again the tax is void for want of apportionment.

But it clearly results that the proposition and the contentions [240 U.S. 1, 12] under it, if acceded to, would cause one provision of the Constitution to destroy another; that is, they would result in bringing the provisions of the Amendment exempting a direct tax from apportionment into irreconcilable conflict with the general requirement that all direct taxes be apportioned. Moreover, the tax authorized by the Amendment, being direct, would not come under the rule of uniformity applicable under the Constitution to other than direct taxes, and thus it would come to pass that the result of the Amendment would be to authorize a particular direct tax not subject either to apportionment or to the rule of geographical uniformity, thus giving power to impose a different tax in one state or states than was levied in another state or states. This result, instead of simplifying the situation and making clear the limitations on the taxing power, which obviously the Amendment must have been intended to accomplish, would create radical and destructive changes in our constitutional system and multiply confusion.

But let us by a demonstration of the error of the fundamental proposition as to the significance of the Amendment dispel the confusion necessarily arising from the arguments deduced from it.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 66
Courageous Attorney Fighting The IRS
Posted: 4/3/2007 4:46:05 AM
I don't know how hard it would be to get 38 states to approve a constitutional amendment to repeal Article 1, Section 2 & 9 and add a provision to permit the Federal Government to tax wages

They already have. It's called the 16th amendment and it relieves the government of the requirement of apportionment for income tax under the constitutional law doctrine of implied repeal.

Article 1, section 8 grants the government the power to lay taxes. Between the two, no other amendment is required.
 Bwanajack
Joined: 2/27/2007
Msg: 67
Courageous Attorney Fighting The IRS
Posted: 4/3/2007 6:55:09 AM
As well meaning as folks are here ...lets look at two proven facts...not disputing
anyone...just as a former law agent...and policeman..and prison guard...a little insight is also reasonable..

1) First congress has the power to levy taxes... they dont? ..well give me back all
that I have paid the last 30 odd years...think they will? ..NO ...why? ..a little legal
term called PRECEDENCE...

2) Why do american citizens pay taxes ..fica, social security, etc etc etc ..why? ..because it is the law..

At one time there was a group of tax protestors called Posse Commititus ...excuse the misspelling... they had to pay..
A way around taxes...make a church..and churches pay no taxes right? ..

All this is well and good...but unfortunately..the man in Lousiana is going to lose..
Why ...simple... Precedence...

Why not change the tax code...?? say Every taxpayer pays 10 or 15% ...of gross income...and throw away all the books...

I salute the man in Lousiana, but good luck to him...
 gentlepatrick
Joined: 3/26/2006
Msg: 68
view profile
History
Courageous Attorney Fighting The IRS
Posted: 4/3/2007 6:59:50 AM
The written decision in BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO is lengthy, convoluted and difficult to read. You have posted some passages that appear to support your position but they must be read in context. What you fail to post is that the decision in BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO upheld (!) the Income Tax:

Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad, 240 U.S. 1 (1916), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the validity of a tax statute called the Revenue Act of 1913, also known as the Tariff Act, Ch. 16, 38 Stat. 166 (Oct. 3, 1913), enacted pursuant to Article I, section 8, clause 1 of, and the Sixteenth Amendment to, the United States Constitution, imposing a federal income tax. The Sixteenth Amendment had been ratified earlier in 1913. The Revenue Act of 1913 imposed income taxes that were not apportioned among the states according to each state's population.




Background: the Pollock case
Prior to 1895, all income taxes had been considered indirect taxes (not required to be apportioned among the states according to the population of each state). In the controversial 1895 case of Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., however, the Court had overturned longstanding precedent and ruled that while a tax on income from labor was an excise, or indirect tax (a tax not required to be apportioned), a tax on income derived from property such as interest, dividends, or rents was -- or should be treated as -- a direct tax.


Facts in the Brushaber case
The plaintiff in this case, Frank R. Brushaber, was a stockholder in the defendant Union Pacific Railroad company. The Sixteenth Amendment had recently been passed, and the U.S. Congress had enacted legislation pursuant to the amendment assessing taxes to the wealthiest of income earners, including the railroad company in this case. Brushaber brought a lawsuit against the railroad company to enjoin it from paying the tax, on the contention that statute enacting the tax violated the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against the government taking property without due process of law, and further contending that the statute further violated due process by exempting certain kinds of income. The U.S. government filed a brief supporting the validity of the tax.


Holdings
The Sixteenth Amendment removes the requirement that income taxes (whether considered to be direct taxes or indirect taxes) be apportioned among the states according to population. The Revenue Act of 1913, imposing income taxes that are not apportioned among the states according to each state's population, is not unconstitutional.

The Federal income tax statute does not violate the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against the government taking property without due process of law.

The Federal income tax statute does not violate the uniformity clause of Article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.


Discussion
In Brushaber the Court noted that even before the Sixteenth Amendment was passed, the Congress had authority to tax income. If a particular income tax was a direct tax -- or was treated as a direct tax -- in the constitutional sense, that tax could be imposed (after Pollock, but before the passage of the Amendment) only by apportionment among the states according to their census populations.

In Brushaber, the Court held that the Sixteenth Amendment eliminated the requirement of apportionment as it relates to "taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived."


Later misunderstanding
Although the court stated that income taxes inherently belong in the category of excise tax (indirect tax), Brushaber is sometimes misunderstood by persons who argue that the case stands for the opposite meaning. Since 1913, however, the Supreme Court of the United States has never ruled that any Federal income tax is anything but an excise tax, not required to be apportioned as a direct tax, but requiring geographic uniformity. As one group of writers has stated:

As construed by the Supreme Court in the Brushaber case, the power of Congress to tax income derives from Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, of the original Constitution rather than from the Sixteenth Amendment; the latter simply eliminated the requirement that an income tax, to the extent that it is a direct tax, must be apportioned among the states.[1]
No income tax enacted by the U.S. Congress (either before or after the Sixteenth Amendment) has ever been apportioned among the states by population. All income taxes enacted after the Amendment have been treated as excises (i.e., have been imposed with geographic uniformity, but have not been required to be apportioned).

The Brushaber court stated, "Moreover, in addition, the conclusion reached in the Pollock case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class of direct taxes on property, but, on the contrary, recognized the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such unless and until it was concluded that to enforce it would amount to accomplishing the result which the requirement as to apportionment of direct taxation was adopted to prevent, in which case the duty would arise to disregard form and consider substance alone,..."

Since the income tax may be imposed on income from whatever source and without regard to any apportionment requirement (by virtue of the wording of the 16th Amendment), an income tax cannot be treated as a direct tax (as income taxes on income from property were so treated in the Pollock case). Essentially, all income taxes after the Sixteenth Amendment are again treated as indirect taxes.
 gentlepatrick
Joined: 3/26/2006
Msg: 69
view profile
History
Courageous Attorney Fighting The IRS
Posted: 4/3/2007 8:23:33 AM
smlje - you need a better understanding of case law. When an appeals court makes a decision, one the judges in the majority is selected to write the decision (the others get to edit/review) - the opposers can write dissenting opinions. There is no dictum for writing decisions - personal style weighs heavily. However, since the purpose is to provide clarity of the law and since most judges are more the scholarly type, decisions can get lengthy and verbose.

Many Appelas Court Judges will lay out the arguments that the 'losing party' made - only to clarify and then reject them. Oft times, those passages, taken alone, will read as if the court supports those positions. That is what you have done in the Brushaber case - you used sections of the decision out of context that seem to support your postion but you ignore/conceal the main point - The court fully upheld taxing wages as income with no apportionment needed.

NB: Once again, I didn't call you any names or make straw man arguments
 Engr
Joined: 3/12/2007
Msg: 70
Courageous Attorney Fighting The IRS
Posted: 4/3/2007 9:52:25 AM

Where is the law making anyone liable for paying an unapportioned tax on wages? Where is the law requiring anyone to file a form 1040? * * *
We are still waiting for an answer.


And again, Smjle has blown the IRS shills out of the water with excellent legal arguments which he backs up with the law and Supreme Court rulings.

So what do the IRS shills do?
Since they cannot show the law making Americans liable for the income tax or refute Smjle's excellent legal arguments, they post the same recycled garbage they have posted numerous times and that provides nothing to support their positions.
 gentlepatrick
Joined: 3/26/2006
Msg: 71
view profile
History
Courageous Attorney Fighting The IRS
Posted: 4/3/2007 10:32:25 AM

Since they cannot show the law

come on - April fools is over - you cannot be that illiterate - really? the law has been posted repeatedly - 'nothing to support their positions'? how sad
 gentlepatrick
Joined: 3/26/2006
Msg: 72
view profile
History
Courageous Attorney Fighting The IRS
Posted: 4/3/2007 11:13:09 AM
I agree bookworm. Engr just says 'yup..yup..what he said' You have issued direct challenges to simjk to address your statements and he has opted to ignore. Its getting pointless preaching to the cult
 Smjle
Joined: 9/19/2006
Msg: 73
Courageous Attorney Fighting The IRS
Posted: 4/3/2007 1:57:02 PM
What law requires anyone to file a 1040?
What law makes the average American liable for an unapportioned tax on his or her wages?
(Don't point out some law on income, especially one that doesn't state who is liable, since as I pointed in numerous Court and Supreme Court rulings, income is NOT wages.)
I'm still waiting.

In law a word can be defined to mean anything. One of the tricks the government uses is to define ‘Gross Income’ to include all revenue including your original capital. However, they cannot tax ‘Gross Income’ as that would be taxing your capital. They trick the public into thinking that if ‘Gross Income” includes wages than wages are income. However, that is not true per all the following Court and Supreme Court rulings:

Stapler v U.S., 21 F Supp 737 AT 739 (1937): "Income within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment and the Revenue Act, means 'gain'... and in such connection 'Gain' means profit...proceeding from property, severed from capital, however invested or employed, and coming in, received, or drawn by the taxpayer, for his separate use, benefit and disposal... Income is not a wage or compensation for any type of labor."

Oliver v. Halstead 86 S.E. Rep 2nd 859 (1955): "There is a clear distinction between `profit' and `wages', or a compensation for labor. Compensation for labor (wages) cannot be regarded as profit within the meaning of the law. The word `profit', as ordinarily used, means the gain made upon any business or investment -- a different thing altogether from the mere compensation for labor."

Helvering v Edison Bros. Stores, 133 F2d 575 (1943): "The Treasury cannot by interpretive regulations, make income of that which is not income within the meaning of the revenue acts of Congress, nor can Congress, without apportionment, tax as income that which is not income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment."

Flora v U.S., 362 U.S. 145, (1959) never overruled: "... the government can collect the tax from a district court suitor by exercising it's power of distraint... but we cannot believe that compelling resort to this extraordinary procedure is either wise or in accord with congressional intent. Our system of taxation is based upon VOLUNTARY ASSESSMENT AND PAYMENT , NOT UPON DISTRAINT" [Footnote 43] If the government is forced to use these remedies(distraint) on a large scale, it will affect adversely the taxpayers willingness to perform under our VOLUNTARY assessment system.

Evens v Gore, 253 U.S. 245 (1920): US Supreme court, never overruled "After further consideration, we adhere to that view and accordingly hold that the Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize or support the tax in question. " (A tax on salary)

Edwards v. Keith, 231 F 110,113 (1916): "The phraseology of form 1040 is somewhat obscure .... But it matters little what it does mean; the statute and the statute alone determines what is income to be taxed. It taxes only income "derived" from many different sources; one does not "derive income" by rendering services and charging for them... IRS cannot enlarge the scope of the statute."

McCutchin v Commissioner of IRS, 159 F2d: "The 16th Amendment does not authorize laying of an income tax upon one person for the income derived solely from another."[wages]

Olk v. United States, February 18, 1975, Las Vegas, Nevada."Tips are gifts and therefore are not taxable."

Central Illinois Publishing Service v. U.S., 435 U.S. 21 (1978): "Decided cases have made the distinction between wages and income and have refused to equate the two."

Anderson Oldsmobile, Inc. vs Hofferbert, 102 F Supp 902: "Constitutionally the only thing that can be taxed by Congress is "income." And the tax actually imposed by Congress has been on net income as distinct from gross income. THE TAX IS NOT, NEVER HAS BEEN, AND COULD NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY BE UPON "GROSS RECEIPTS" ..."

Conner v US, 303 F Supp 1187 Federal District Court, Houston, never overruled. "..whatever may constitute income, therefore, must have the essential feature of gain to the recipient. This was true at the time of Eisner V Macomber, it was true under section 22(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1938, and it is likewise true under Section 61(a) of the IRS code of 1954. If there is not gain, there is not income, CONGRESS HAS TAXED INCOME, NOT COMPENSATION"

Bowers vs Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 US 174 (1926): "Income" has been taken to mean the same thing as used in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, in the Sixteenth Amendment and in the various revenue acts subsequently passed ...."

Simms v. Ahrens, 271 SW 720 (1925): "An income tax is neither a property tax nor a tax on occupations of common right, but is an EXCISE tax...The legislature may declare as 'privileged' and tax as such for state revenue, those pursuits not matters of common right, but it has no power to declare as a 'privilege' and tax for revenue purposes, occupations that are of common right."

Eisner v. Macomber, 252 US 189 (1920), US Supreme court, never overruled: "...the definition of 'income' approved by this court is: The gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, provided it be understood to include profits gained through sale or conversion of capital assets."

Laureldale Cemetery Assoc. v. Matthews, 345 Pa. 239 (1946): "Reasonable compensation for labor or services rendered is not profit"

Schuster v. Helvering, 121 F 2nd 643: "Income is realized gain."

Butchers' Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746 (1883). One of the most eloquent opinions ever delivered by the Court..
"Among these unalienable rights, as proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant, the right any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give them their highest enjoyment...It has been well said that, THE PROPERTY WHICH EVERY MAN HAS IS HIS OWN LABOR, AS IT IS THE ORIGINAL FOUNDATION OF ALL OTHER PROPERTY SO IT IS THE MOST SACRED AND INVIOLABLE..."
 gentlepatrick
Joined: 3/26/2006
Msg: 74
view profile
History
Courageous Attorney Fighting The IRS
Posted: 4/3/2007 2:54:55 PM
tsk tsk tsk smjle...you posted verbatim from this site: http://www.voluntarytax.info/

you didnt READ any of those decisions now did you? you posted the entire list AS IS. Those are NOT decisions or rulings - they are snippets of language taken out of context and prove nothing. you go round and round ............
 jenna518
Joined: 3/18/2006
Msg: 75
view profile
History
Courageous Attorney Fighting The IRS
Posted: 4/3/2007 3:14:13 PM
Ok starting with the 16th Amendment which by the way if you have in fact studied it was not radified by enough states to be made into a law and the US Supreme Court has ruled that Income Tax is Voluntary this is in the Tax Code by the way. I don't have time to cite case by case where the courts have ruled against the IRS but you can watch Arron Russo's Freedom to Fascism in America and research them yourselves! This Attorney will win as again all any of us who have been supporting this movement have been asking is for the Government to Show Us the LAW!!! If there isn't one than why isn't there and why are we to be taken to court have our assets seized ect when there isn't a LAW!!!
Show ALL Forums  > Current Events  > Courageous Attorney Fighting The IRS