old news.

[psholtz]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

The Amendment "relieved from that requirement" the need for an income tax that was direct to be apportioned that previously existed. The 16th Amendment was written specifically to overturn the Pollock decision of 1895, which decided that taxing the income from real property (like rents) was a direct tax and needed to be apportioned. Now, all income taxes are "on the same basis"...that is, no need to be apportioned, whether direct or indirect.

Incidentally, the Supreme Court later reversed the holding of Pollock (after the 16th Amendment was ratified) and decided that all income taxes are indirect. So the "direct or indirect" debate is just academic at this point.

So what the SCOTUS is saying is that:

1) taxes may be levied on any type of income, whether direct or indirect, without regard to apportionment; and
2) all incomes are indirect anyway, so the apportionment argument doesn't really matter anyway.

Is that what you're trying to say?

[psholtz]

Originally Posted by trooper2ls

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,

Good post.

My only comment is that the proper wording here is "public servants".. ;-)

[indago]

Lawdog lamented:

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.

And all based on a lie!

[psholtz]

I agree..

My impression was more that the IRC and income taxes only apply to individuals who have accepted some type of government franchise, such as a Social Security number. Making so many "dollars" per year - a (so-called) "requirement" for filing - does not necessarily imply jurisdiction of the IRS over the unenfranchised individual. I believe you can find a reference for this in State v. Furth 144 Pacific p. 907.

[mertensv16]

Originally Posted by psholtz

I agree..

My impression was more that the IRC and income taxes only apply to individuals who have accepted some type of government franchise, such as a Social Security number. Making so many "dollars" per year - a (so-called) "requirement" for filing - does not necessarily imply jurisdiction of the IRS over the unenfranchised individual. I believe you can find a reference for this in State v. Furth 144 Pacific p. 907.

Your impression is incorrect and is based on a myth that a lot of tax deniers have swallowed like the Koolaid at Jonestown. The law has never required a government franchise or privilege as a necessary condition to taxation. The very first federal income tax in this country applied to anyone residing in the United States who made over $800 in income, and it didn't matter one bit where the income came from or whethet the person had any kind of franchise or privilege. This law was held to be constitutional by the Supreme Court long before the adoption of the 16th Amendment.

Your citation is not on point. First of all, the case doesn't deal with taxes at all. Second, it's a state court decision, and as such can have no bearing whatsoever on federal tax law.

[psholtz]

Originally Posted by mertensv16

Your impression is incorrect and is based on a myth that a lot of tax deniers have swallowed like the Koolaid at Jonestown. The law has never required a government franchise or privilege as a necessary condition to taxation. The very first federal income tax in this country applied to anyone residing in the United States who made over $800 in income, and it didn't matter one bit where the income came from or whethet the person had any kind of franchise or privilege. This law was held to be constitutional by the Supreme Court long before the adoption of the 16th Amendment.

Prove it.

I'd be interested in learning more.

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by psholtz

I agree..

My impression was more that the IRC and income taxes only apply to individuals who have accepted some type of government franchise, such as a Social Security number. Making so many "dollars" per year - a (so-called) "requirement" for filing - does not necessarily imply jurisdiction of the IRS over the unenfranchised individual. I believe you can find a reference for this in State v. Furth 144 Pacific p. 907.

1) Your impression is wrong.
2) You quote a state court case, in West's Pacific regional reporter, when the topic is federal tax law? Are you joking?

[moishanb]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

1) Your impression is wrong.
2) You quote a state court case, in West's Pacific regional reporter, when the topic is federal tax law? Are you joking?

Actually, your impression psholtz, is your impression. I will give you some additional things for which to impress upon your current impression.

Admiralty actions require an agreement, thus requiring a contract. Administrative actions require an agreement, thus requiring a contract. Keep this impression within your impressions. It will help you decipher what you need to do, and how to handle your affairs.

The IRS are experts in the area of Lex Mercatoria. They use a series of computer generated offers that have a high percentage of acceptance, and such acceptance of the offers lead to agreements, which then lead to contracts, which then lead to pay(honor) or argument(dishonor, since you already agreed to the offer).

The 10,000 pages in the IRS Manual are good to know, but virtually impossible to master. What we must do is master our own affairs, not IRS affairs. I am impressing upon you that understanding/comprehending agreements and contracts is the key to understanding/comprehending commerce, and the tributes paid within commerce.

IMPRESSION, CASE OF FIRST. One without a precedent; one presenting a wholly new state of facts; one involving a question never before determined. Black's Law 4th

[mertensv16]

Originally Posted by psholtz

Prove it.

I'd be interested in learning more.

Here's the first income tax (Section 49):
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage....db&recNum=340

Here's the case upholding it:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bi...=102&invol=586

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

Originally Posted by moishanb

Admiralty actions require an agreement, thus requiring a contract. Administrative actions require an agreement, thus requiring a contract. Keep this impression within your impressions. It will help you decipher what you need to do, and how to handle your affairs.


The 10,000 pages in the IRS Manual are good to know, but virtually impossible to master. What we must do is master our own affairs, not IRS affairs. I am impressing upon you that understanding/comprehending agreements and contracts is the key to understanding/comprehending commerce, and the tributes paid within commerce.

That is a very good point. The very same one I wanted to make with this thread. Its not about asking permission from the witchdoctors, or speculating on others impressions- what matters is the bigger picture.

Of course this is a body of administrative law, it has an administration fer cryin' out loud! And legislative courts to boot.

And lets keep in mind what "from all sources derived" must, has to, can only mean: what areas does the state have jurisdiction over? How could they ever tax something over which they have no power in the first place?

I seem to remember that only a few crimes are under the authority of the FEDS to prosecute. But they do have power over interstate commerce, and import/export, and over their own "zones". So this should be patently obvious...there has to be a nexus.

The real root of the problem is mass psychosis, for which there is no man-made fix. The general conception is that some things just arbitrarily constitute "revenue", or "activity", without considering how it is anyone comes to be entangled in the first place.

Since the agencies are "internal revenue" and "inland revenue"...thats shouting it to everyone's face! Its internal by contradistinction to something else, it's inland because this time its not where it would normally be, on the seas. Thats where things fall apart- the land and the folk in general are NOT "internal" to the government! Internal has to mean, inside the system. as in, numbered, lettered, zoned, occupied, etc.

The popular mentality is so ignorant of basic history and has swallowed this "democracy" nonsense hook line and sinker. All taxes always throughout history have been laid on areas where the ruler has an interest in the first place, there must be a nexus it cant be random, just for administrative reasons. There is no "great eye" up there that magically "knows" everything ( not by the hand of man anyway)

Here's a test- ask an anyone around what is the first step in a legal procedure. Nearly everyone will answer "break the law" or "something done by the defendant"; just completely missing the fact that ALL cases are initiated by a PLAINTIFF- no one can sue themselves.


I personally think that certain words in the language have been monopolized and its just a bad idea to use them. Its an accounting system so don't use words of account, in fact stop believing in numbers altogether would be a good idea. There is a diabolical tendency to break the Creation up and classify and separate and reduce and imagine, this leads to no good end.