old news.

[psholtz]

Originally Posted by mertensv16

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

Thanks.

So it sounds like we're back to what has already been mentioned on this thread: defeating the presumption of residency (a presumption which might, for instance, arise through the creation of some State-created franchise like the SSN).

That, and/or deriving ones substance and livlihood from property, professions, trade, employments and vocations, rather than from the income derived from property, professions, trade, employments and vocations.

[mertensv16]

Originally Posted by farmer_giles_of_ham

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 ion 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.

You seem to be laboring under the misperception that Congress can tax only those things that it can also regulate. But this has never been the law -- the power to tax is complelely independent of the other powers granted to Congress under the Constitution. This was settled as far back as 1868, when a case arose challenging federal taxation of purely intrastate activities. In response to the objection that these activities were solely within the jurisdiction of the states to regulate, the Court upheld the taxes and stated:

It is true that the power of Congress to tax is a very extensive power. It is given in the Constitution, with only one exception and only two qualifications. Congress cannot tax exports, and it must impose direct taxes by the rule of apportionment, and indirect taxes by the rule of uniformity. Thus limited, and thus only, it reaches every subject, and may be exercised at discretion. The License Tax Cases, 72 U.S. 462 (1868) (emphasis added)

And please don't fall for the tired tax denier notion that Congress can't tax outside of "federal areas", either. That bit of nonsense conflicts with the Constitution itself, as the Supreme Court noted over 180 years ago:

The 8th section of the 1st article [of the Constitution] gives to Congress the 'power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises,' for the purposes thereinafter mentioned. This grant is general, without limitation as to place. It, consequently, extends to all places over which the government extends. If this could be doubted, the doubt is removed by the subsequent words which modify the grant. These words are, 'but all duties, imposts, and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United States.' It will not be contended that the modification of the power extends to places to which the power itself does not extend. The power then to lay and collect duties, imposts, and excises, may be exercised, and must be exercised throughout the United States. Does this term designate the whole, or any particular portion of the American empire? Certainly this question can admit of but one answer. It is the name given to our great republic, which is composed of States and territories. Loughborough v. Blake, 18 U.S. 317 (1820) (emphasis added)

The only nexus required is that the taxpayer be (a) an American citizen or resident alien, both of whom are generally taxed on their worldwide income, or (b) a nonresident alien whose income is effectively connected with the U.S. (e.g., a nonresident alien is taxable on the gain he realizes by selling land located in the U.S.)

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by psholtz

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?

Yes. That is exactly what I said. Weren't you paying attention?

Remember what the Court said in the Kerbaugh-Empire case, which I previously quoted. "Congress already had the power to tax all incomes" even before the 16th Amendment was ratified. However, the Pollock case (in 1895) ruled that SOME (not all) types of income taxes (such as taxing income that was received as rent for real estate) were direct and therefore had to be apportioned, as the Constitution says direct taxes must be. So the 16th Amendment was proposed and passed and "relieved from that requirement." That is, it relieved income taxes from the apportionment requirement.

However, about a decade or so after Kerbaugh-Empire (and about 45 years after the Pollock decision which led to the 16th Amendment), the Court decided in a line of cases beginning with New York ex rel. Cohn v. Graves that Pollock had been wrongly decided, and that all income taxes are indirect. Since nothing in the Constitution (as originally written or as amended) requires indirect taxes to be apportioned, the Court essentially mooted the 16th Amendment. Even if the 16th Amendment were repealed tomorrow, nothing in the current income tax scheme would be affected, because the Supreme Court overturned itself on the very case that led to the need for the 16th Amendment in the first place.

[psholtz]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

Yes. That is exactly what I said. Weren't you paying attention?

Yes, I was paying attention.. as you yourself have just confirmed.

Are you sure that you're not the one who wasn't paying attention? Wny pose such a question if in fact you had been paying attention?

Your manner of speech is, nevertheless, extremely deceptive.

I was simply ordering you to clarify some of the finer points which you had been trying to make.

Your responses please me greatly, and I thank you for them.

Remember what the Court said in the Kerbaugh-Empire case, which I previously quoted. "Congress already had the power to tax all incomes" even before the 16th Amendment was ratified. However, the Pollock case (in 1895) ruled that SOME (not all) types of income taxes (such as taxing income that was received as rent for real estate) were direct and therefore had to be apportioned, as the Constitution says direct taxes must be. So the 16th Amendment was proposed and passed and "relieved from that requirement." That is, it relieved income taxes from the apportionment requirement.

So it sounds like the 16th was one of those "unlawful" amendments after all.

The purpose of the Constitution is to *always* reign in and restrict the power of government, *never* to expand it. If the intention of th 16th amendment was to some expand the power of government, or "remove restrictions" on the government, as you put it, then this in itself completely invalidates the amendment.. to say nothing the States needed to ratify, etc.

However, about a decade or so after Kerbaugh-Empire (and about 45 years after the Pollock decision which led to the 16th Amendment), the Court decided in a line of cases beginning with New York ex rel. Cohn v. Graves that Pollock had been wrongly decided, and that all income taxes are indirect. Since nothing in the Constitution (as originally written or as amended) requires indirect taxes to be apportioned, the Court essentially mooted the 16th Amendment. Even if the 16th Amendment were repealed tomorrow, nothing in the current income tax scheme would be affected, because the Supreme Court overturned itself on the very case that led to the need for the 16th Amendment in the first place.

Indeed.

Still the 16th amendment should be repealed nevertheless.

[psholtz]

Originally Posted by mertensv16

The only nexus required is that the taxpayer be (a) an American citizen or resident alien, both of whom are generally taxed on their worldwide income, or (b) a nonresident alien whose income is effectively connected with the U.S. (e.g., a nonresident alien is taxable on the gain he realizes by selling land located in the U.S.)

So you don't think the nexus is created by Social Security?

What's the difference between an American citizen and an American denizen?

Can an American denizen get a U.S. passport?

[Lawdog]

The purpose of an amendment can only be to make the federal government less powerful?

It can never expand the power of the federal government?

Show me where this is written anywhere in the Constitution. ANYWHERE.

You can't. There is no such restriction. Although it was later repealed by the 21st Amendment, the 18th Amendment clearly gave the federal government a power it previously lacked...the power to ban the manufacture and sale of alcohol.

The Constitution can be amended to say potentially anything. So long as the proper procedures are followed, an amendment could be passed that makes being left-handed a capital offense.

You have some very wacky ideas.

[psholtz]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

The purpose of an amendment can only be to make the federal government less powerful?

It can never expand the power of the federal government?

Show me where this is written anywhere in the Constitution. ANYWHERE.

You can't. There is no such restriction. Although it was later repealed by the 21st Amendment, the 18th Amendment clearly gave the federal government a power it previously lacked...the power to ban the manufacture and sale of alcohol.

The Constitution can be amended to say potentially anything. So long as the proper procedures are followed, an amendment could be passed that makes being left-handed a capital offense.

You have some very wacky ideas.

Show me where it is written that I ever expected you to understand and grasp the concept of liberty and freedom? ANYWHERE?

LOL..

[Lawdog]

Nice dodge there. If this were court, I'd have moved to strike your answer as non-responsive.

The Constitution can be amended to say theoretically anything. Anything you can get 2/3 of each house of Congress and 3/4 of the state legislatures to agree to.

[psholtz]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

Nice dodge there. If this were court, I'd have moved to strike your answer as non-responsive.

Keep dreaming.. we're not in court.. :-)

[Lawdog]

Since you never answered my question, I'll take that as a concession.