old news.

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

The paper terrorists of the MAN like to argue (speculate). But the WORD says- Fear no evil, heed no nightly noises. Below, a refresher:

"The provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation . . ."

United States Supreme Court, Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916)

“We are of opinion, however, that 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 will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it...”

“[Taxation of "income" is] 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, and hence subject the tax to the regulation as to apportionment which otherwise as an excise would not apply to it” (That is, if the "income" tax ever comes to be administered as something other than an excise, or on something unsuited to an excise, the rule of apportionment must be applied.)

United States Supreme Court, Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)

“

The Sixteenth Amendment, although referred to in argument, has no real bearing and may be put out of view. As pointed out in recent decisions, it does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects...”

United States Supreme Court, Peck v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165 (1918)

"The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Chief Justice White, first noted that the Sixteenth Amendment did not authorize any new type of tax, nor did it repeal or revoke the tax clauses of Article I of the Constitution, quoted above. Direct taxes were, notwithstanding the advent of the Sixteenth Amendment, still subject to the rule of apportionment and indirect taxes were still subject to the rule of uniformity."

Howard M. Zaritsky, Legislative Attorney, American Law Division of the Library of Congress, Report No. 80-19A, entitled “Some Constitutional Questions Regarding The Federal Income Tax Laws”, page CRS-5 (1979)

"The legislative history merely shows... ...that the sole purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment was to remove the apportionment requirement for whichever incomes were otherwise taxable. 45 Cong. Rec. 2245-2246 (1910); id., at 2539; see also Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, 17 -18 (1916)."

United States Supreme Court, South Carolina v. Baker, 405 U.S. 505 (1988)

"We must reject… …the broad contention submitted in behalf of the government that all receipts-- everything that comes in-- are income…”

United States Supreme Court, So. Pacific v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330, (1918)

--------------------------------------------------

The typical speculation, "is that legal?" is based on an entirely false premise. Each case is different, and involves a process. The result will be what it will- better to know thine enemy and understand the truth, we are lost without truth and knowledge.

Be optimistic, have faith, hold on, ring true, live and be happy. Let the babblers stew and froth.

[Lawdog]

True, but misleading. The 16th Amendment conferred no new power to tax because Congress already had the power to tax incomes, according to the Supreme Court. The 16th removed a restriction on that power...that any income tax deemed "direct" had to be apportioned.

“The Sixteenth Amendment declares that Congress shall have power to levy and collect taxes on income, ‘from whatever source derived’ without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. It was not the purpose or the effect of that amendment to bring any new subject within the taxing power. Congress already had the power to tax all incomes. But taxes on incomes from some sources had been held to be ‘direct taxes’ within the meaning of the constitutional requirement as to apportionment. [cites omitted] The 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.’”
Bowers, Collector v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170, 173-174 (1926).

Next discredited tax protester assertion?

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

Is that stew I smell frothing about?

Yes, bring back slavery:

Art 1 Farmer Giles Constitution of Law

all holders of BAR cards past and present are hereby forfeit to the right honorable government of Farmer Giles for immediate auction on the slave block. No exceptions.

[yebliker]

Lawdog- if the 16th granted no new powers of taxation (which I believe), yet did not OVERTURN the need for direct taxation to be apportioned, then that means it is an excise tax. Make sense to you? The requirement is still stated that direct taxes must be apportioned. Why does it still say that? Hm?
-Yebliker

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

Your question is good and falls on deaf ears. SuiJuris has been very educational for me, among other reasons by teaching me the futility of trying to be right, or make sense. Words are just a cover for deeper intentions and motives.

Pete H. is on the right track, because aside from the "reasons", which are irrelevant, he is pointing the way towards positive action: face the problem square-on, make the claim and lets see what the other side does. Now that's just simple common sense.

I think Mr.H does miss the deeper point, in that he is trying to "parse the code" and find most people excluded by definition. True, but apparently it is possible to contract back in, thats the way they've been playing that game now for many decades.

I would take his method starting from the point of "no income", instead of "no activity". Hey, maybe I am active and involved with the Feds, whatever, only I derive no excess benefit, no net gain. I just deal in property. 'even-steven'.

So ANYONE, under ANY circumstance, could well make their testimony based just on the mathematic logic- everything is always in balance anyway, its impossible for a "profit" to occur, without a balancing loss.

Pete H. makes the good point that legal status (citizen, resident, alien etc) is irrelevant to the more fundamental premise of "revenue-taxable activity"

The next step is to deny profit gain or benefit- everthing is accounted "even-flow exchange", "secured transaction" "credit/debt" "prepaid insurance damage"- in other words there is always a net zero change in a closed system.

All this foderol is nothing more than a war of words: what terms will reside with a given number on a ledger. By making an affidavit such as a 1040 and the other IRS forms, that characterization stands ahead of any other inferior claim, like a mere "information statement".

If the IRS or anyone else wants to deny such a verified declaration then the same must be equally opposed, with their own controversy under penalty of perjury.

Which they never do, they wont- the H's are under civil suit to change their own testimony, rather than the Treas Dept actually contradicting them with their claim.

Which means the establishment cannot actually do anything about it legally, because they wage no law themselves- they will not speak their peace, they have no "jurisdiction". They don't actually know anything! But they want to force us to confess what they would like to hear...that's called "the Inquisition".

Legal theories are a distraction, what counts is action. Attorneys will kick and scream "you cant do that!"

No one asked you.

[Livefire]

Any time you do something that is perfectly legitimate and the bar minions dont like, they kick and scream! Whats ok for them isnt ok for anyone else.

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by yebliker

Lawdog- if the 16th granted no new powers of taxation (which I believe), yet did not OVERTURN the need for direct taxation to be apportioned, then that means it is an excise tax. Make sense to you? The requirement is still stated that direct taxes must be apportioned. Why does it still say that? Hm?
-Yebliker

Read again. More carefully. The Supreme Court says that the 16th Amendment means what it says and says what it means...if an income tax is direct, it no longer needs to be apportioned.

Congress already had the power to tax all incomes. But taxes on incomes from some sources had been held to be ‘direct taxes’ within the meaning of the constitutional requirement as to apportionment. [cites omitted] The 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.’”
Bowers, Collector v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170, 173-174 (1926).

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.

[indago]

Lawdog lamented:

True, but misleading. The 16th Amendment conferred no new power to tax because Congress already had the power to tax incomes, according to the Supreme Court. The 16th removed a restriction on that power...that any income tax deemed "direct" had to be apportioned.

This has already been addressed: see post #54 HERE

[Lawdog]

The Bowers case, which I quoted, was decided about 10 years AFTER the Brushaber and Stanton cases. Thus, to the extent that there is any conflict among them, Bowers wins, under the "later in time" rule.

In any case, this is also largely irrelevant. NO federal court has struck down ANY income tax as unconstitutional since the 16th Amendment was ratified.

[indago]

Lawdog lamented:

The Bowers case, which I quoted, was decided about 10 years AFTER the Brushaber and Stanton cases. Thus, to the extent that there is any conflict among them, Bowers wins, under the "later in time" rule.

In any case, this is also largely irrelevant. NO federal court has struck down ANY income tax as unconstitutional since the 16th Amendment was ratified.

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???