old news.

[trooper2ls]

It is a maze of mirrors.

In the face of the Supreme Court's holding in Brushaber and in other cases that the income tax is an excise in the class of indirect taxes, the IRS insists on arguing in litigations and in publications that the income tax is a direct tax but utilizes § 6020(b) that addresses only excise taxes in order to manufacture SFRs for individuals. This maze of mirrors has been smoked up further with the recent admission made by IRS officials to the United States General Accounting Office (GAO) "that they do not generally prepare actual tax returns."

By examining a copy of one of these SFRs that the IRS manufactures for individuals we will readily understand why the IRS has finally admitted (see II, GAO Report No. GAO/GDD-00-60R) that not only are these SFRs not actual tax returns but they don't even look like tax returns!

The very purpose of the 16th Amendment, as stated by the Supreme Court in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, 112 (1916), was to keep judges, and I suspect IRS agents and other public officials, from attempting by specious reasoning to remove the original, constitutional power of income taxation from the indirect class of taxes. Thus in Stanton the Supreme Court stated:
"The Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged...."

The U.S. Supreme Court in Brushaber, supra, said: "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...."

The case of Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, 154 (1911), although heard before the 16th Amendment was declared as ratified in 1913, was relied upon in 1916 by the Brushaber court. The Supreme Court in Flint said: "Conceding the power of Congress to tax the business activities of private corporations ... the tax must be measured by some standard...." The Court concluded, "It is therefore well settled by the decisions of this court that when the sovereign authority has exercised the right to tax a legitimate subject of taxation as an exercise of a franchise or privilege, it is no objection that the measure of taxation is found in the income."

The mere "current usage" of the term "excise tax" cannot extend its meaning to the point that it conflicts with its legal meaning. It is abundantly clear from a logical and consistent consideration of the various texts of the federal tax code, the tax regulations and courts rulings that one must rely upon the law and the facts to determine the class of a tax. In Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co, 271 U.S. 170 (1926), the Supreme Court put it this way: "In determining what constitutes income, substance rather than form is to be given controlling weight."

From the Congressional Record-House, March 27, 1943, p. 2580, we read:

"The Supreme Court has held that the sixteenth amendment did not extend the taxing power of the United States to new or excepted subjects but merely removed the necessity which might otherwise exist for an apportionment among the states of taxes laid on income whether it be derived from one source or another. So the amendment made it possible to bring investment income within the scope of a general income-tax law but did not change the character of the tax. It is still fundamentally an excise or duty with respect to the privilege of carrying on any activity or owning any property which produces income.

There is an old story that says you can't kill a frog by dropping him into boiling water. He reacts so quickly to the sudden heat that he jumps out of the water before he is hurt. But if you put him in cold water and then warm it up gradually he'll end up cooked without knowing it! Human nature is much the same. People are as tolerant as frogs. Take their freedom overnight and you will have an immediate revolution. But steal it from them gradually and you can paralyze an entire nation.

.J

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by indago

Lawdog lamented:

Of course an income tax is constitutional, but it is restricted to the indirect tax category, as pronounced by the Supreme Court. And the lower courts opinions don't overturn the Supreme Court opinion, just distort it...

will the subterfuge and deceit never end???

Negative. Again, read the quote I previously posted. Closely. As the Supreme Court said in Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire, pre 16th Amendment, although "Congress already has the power to tax all incomes," SOME income taxes had been held to be direct and thus subject to the rule of apportionment.

The 16th amendment "...relieved from that requirement and obliterated the distinction in that respect between taxes on income that are direct taxes and those that are not, and so put on the same basis all incomes ‘from whatever source derived."

"Relieved" and "obliterated." The apportionment rule was obliterated, with respect to income taxes. It's kaput. Finished. Done.

What I was saying was, the Supreme Court decided a couple of decades after the 16th that Pollock, the case that led to the 16th amendment being added, had been wrongly decided, and that all income taxes, including taxes on wages and salaries, are indirect. So current Supreme Court jurisprudence is such that, even if the 16th amendment were repealed, Congress would not have to change the current tax scheme.

Let me re-iterate. I DO NOT LIKE PAYING TAXES. I was not happy the other day when I wrote a check to the Treasury for the amount I underpaid last year. But it's the law. EVERY single court that has considered the issue for over 90 years has ruled that the federal income tax is valid, enforceable, and applies to the wages and salaries of every person who resides in one of the states or the District of Columbia, whether citizen of the United States or not. When I tell you that these tax protester arguments have never worked, I am not giving you my opinion. I am stating a fact. And if anyone wants, I can cite the cases to prove it.

[mertensv16]

Originally Posted by trooper2ls

From the Congressional Record-House, March 27, 1943, p. 2580, we read:

"The Supreme Court has held that the sixteenth amendment did not extend the taxing power of the United States to new or excepted subjects but merely removed the necessity which might otherwise exist for an apportionment among the states of taxes laid on income whether it be derived from one source or another. So the amendment made it possible to bring investment income within the scope of a general income-tax law but did not change the character of the tax. It is still fundamentally an excise or duty with respect to the privilege of carrying on any activity or owning any property which produces income. (emphasis added).

Assuming this is a correct statement of the law, what part of "any activity" and "any property" is so hard for the tax deniers to understand?

Moreover, don't get the idea that some sort of government-granted "privilege" is required in order for the government to levy an excise such as the income tax. The Supreme Court last defined an excise tax in 1929, when it upheld the constitutionality of the federal gift tax, and it didn't rely on any notion of "privilege":

... this Court has consistently held, almost from the foundation of the government, that a tax imposed upon a particular use of property or the exercise of a single power over property incidental to ownership, is an excise which need not be apportioned, and it is enough for present purposes that this tax is of the latter class." Bromley v. McCaughn, 280 U.S. 124
(1929) (emphasis added)

The word "privilege" appears nowhere in the majority opinion, and unless you're some sort of socialist, you'd be hard pressed to argue that giving away your own property is a "privilege". So don't rely on the "privilege" or "excisable activity" arguments -- they're losers.

[weishaupt1776]

16th was passed by a defacto legislature composed of 14th amndmt citizens

Because the 14th amendment was imposed by the Reconstruction acts, which violated Art V:5; and a whole list of other constitutional violations; ithe 16th acts as private law which applies to 14th amndmt "U.S. Persons" as defined in 26 USC 7701

If you are PRESUMED to be such a person, with NO evidence that you tried to rectify this problem BEFOREHAND; you are roped into their private law venue,

Also, the cases you cite happened before the SSN in 1935; so if you have shown no effort to cancel that number, then you are again in their private law venue

Because they are defacto 14th Amndmt citizens, all of their legislation is defacto, so even their "public law" is really enveloped in the larger realm of "private law" applicable to "their citizens"

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

Originally Posted by mertensv16

Assuming this is a correct statement of the law, what part of "any activity" and "any property" is so hard for the tax deniers to understand?

The parts that you left out of your own cite:

the privilege of carrying on any activity or owning any property which produces income

of course. privileged activities and ownerships, like a franchise. Sounds like Mcdonalds...


Apparently what's really hard for the tax admirers to understand is any verified allegation of actually carrying on any activity or producing income. I have yet to see one.

Originally Posted by weishaupt1776

Because they are defacto 14th Amndmt citizens, all of their legislation is defacto, so even their "public law" is really enveloped in the larger realm of "private law" applicable to "their citizens"

here's a clue from our erstwhile canus legalis:

Originally Posted by lawdog

the federal income tax...applies to the wages and salaries of every person who resides in one of the states or the District of Columbia

which I think is exactly what you're saying. The question is how to overcome any presumption of residency.

The U.S. Supreme Court in Brushaber, supra, said: "...the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such...."

Or otherwise "render nugatory" the accounting of a given ledger entry as "income".
-------------------------------------------------------
Its all nonsense because all this only exists in the mind, as represented on paper. I got up, went around, did a few things, went back to bed. Thats life. There was no "income".

Meanwhile the system owns at least half of all property anyway- witness the CAFR's.

Dollars to donuts says that the sum of all "internal tax revenues" is about equal to the cost of the system itself: a perpetual motion machine.

Clever folk.

The culture has "progressed" to the point that nerds, dorks and geeks rule (aka "managers" and "technocrats"). If we dont do our homework, or give the wrong answer, woe betide the misbeliever! "revenge of the teacher's pet"

And the best part is the jocks and the cretins do the dirty work for them. Now thats a turnabout!

I never did finish high school, wonder why...

[mertensv16]

Originally Posted by farmer_giles_of_ham

of course. privileged activities and ownerships, like a franchise. Sounds like Mcdonalds...

That's why I qualified my remark about the quote, because it isn't an accurate statement of the law. It amazes me how you and the rest of the tax deniers can ignore the Supreme Court's definition of an excise in the Bromley case, which doesn't involve any kind of privilege or franchise. All that's required for a valid excise is the exercise of a power over property, and receiving money for work falls into that category. Accordingly, the receipt of income from any kind of activity, privileged or not, can be the subject of an income tax.

Apparently what's really hard for the tax admirers to understand is any verified allegation of actually carrying on any activity or producing income. I have yet to see one.

Maybe it's because the concept of "verified allegation" is too vague and sounds like more tax denier gibberish.

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

Originally Posted by mertensv16

the concept of "verified allegation" is too vague and sounds like more tax denier gibberish.

here's some more gibberish, then:

Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

whoops! hoof hearted; ice melted...

[mertensv16]

As applied to the requirements for the issuance of a search warrant, the words make sense.

As applied to the constitutional power of Congress to levy taxes, the words are tax denier gibberish.

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

You're right- taxation is the fruit of random opinions and just falls out of the sky.

Be careful, its raining attorneys and accountants out there! Have you got an umbrella?

No one ever need make an actual understandable cause to even establish the appearance of a court case.

Notice that you left out (again) a seizure warrant, aka "arrest warrant".

Maybe these days no signature is required, could well be: "sorry, it's in the computer"..."customer service dept has ordered your arrest"..."a glitch in the software has terminated your rights..."

There is good movie called "Brazil" on these lines, by Terry Gilliam of Monty Python, starring fellow-trouper Michael Palin.

no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation

That affects the constitutional power to tax because...its in the Constitution. Its an inherent limitation on too many random opinions.

(d'oh! not good for business. Dont worry, a sucker is born every minute. And a leech is as well.)

In babble-on-and-on-and-on-ia, "gibberish" means English. Thats what plain speech sounds like to the many headed.

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

double post