Tax questions...

[yebliker]

OK, I may be wrong on that issue. I may be right, too.

This still doesn't mean that there are many itmes in the Const. that contradict each other, and that it is a matter of common occurence. The Supreme court did rule that that the confusion surrounding the issue of direct vs. indirect taxation happened when people assumed that the 16th allowed a direct tax without apportionment.

-Y

Originally Posted by mertensv16

Wrong. In fact, only one amendment in history (the
21st) contained language expressly referring to the portion of the Constitution that it was superseding.

The Constitution still contains language that (a) recognizes slavery, (b) provides that the person finishing second in the Presidential vote becomes the Vice President, and (c) provides that Senators are to be elected by the state legislatures. Are you seriously suggesting that any of these is still the law?

Congress already had the power to tax incomes before the 16th Amendment, and the Supreme Court held in 1881 that a tax on personal earnings was an indirect tax. The sole reason for the 16th was to overturn the result in the Pollock case, which had held that a tax on investment income was a direct tax.

[Ecclesiastes]

Originally Posted by yebliker

Here is a great lecture on the subject, though I haven't watched the whole thing yet:

http://video.google.com/videosearch?...arch=&start=10

You're looking at "Theft by Deception"?

While you're watching it, you might want to remember that the guy who wrote it, Larken Rose, was tried for 5 counts of willfully failing to file income tax returns, got his chance to argue his theories to the jury, and was convicted and spent more than a year in prison.

I'd rather get my legal advice from people who have NOT been convicted and imprisoned.

[Ecclesiastes]

Originally Posted by yebliker

The Supreme court did rule that that the confusion surrounding the issue of direct vs. indirect taxation happened when people assumed that the 16th allowed a direct tax without apportionment.

That's not exactly what the Supreme Court said.

What the Supreme Court in Brushaber said was "without foundation" was the contention that the 16th Amendment "treats a tax on income as a direct tax although it is relieved from apportionment and is necessarily therefore not subject to the rule of uniformity...."

According to the Supreme Court, the 16th Amendment took the income tax out of the category of "direct tax" that must be apportioned and put it back into the category of "indirect taxes" that must be uniform, where it "inherently belonged."

[dorkenbutt]

We all know the the "income tax" is certainly uniform. LOL!!!

[indago]

mertensv16 wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------------
Congress already had the power to tax incomes before the 16th Amendment, and the Supreme Court held in 1881 that a tax on personal earnings was an indirect tax.
-------------------------------------------------------------


ALREADY DISCUSSED

[yebliker]

Unfortunately, the URL I posted before was wrong. Sometimes what you are watching and the URL don't match up. I know all about Larken Rose, and his jail time. This is something different:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...IYm-igKpwtSpDw

It's from the Free Enterprise Society, and has a lot of good info.
Sorry for the confusion this caused--
Yebliker

[Ecclesiastes]

Originally Posted by yebliker

Unfortunately, the URL I posted before was wrong. Sometimes what you are watching and the URL don't match up. I know all about Larken Rose, and his jail time. This is something different:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...IYm-igKpwtSpDw

It's from the Free Enterprise Society, and has a lot of good info.

Steve Hempfling, aka the "Free Enterprise Society," has also been enjoined for promoting tax frauds, and is currently facing civil contempt charges for failing to comply with the injunction.

Here's a link to Justice Department information:
http://149.101.1.32/tax/txdv08250.htm which also has links to the court injunction.

Just to make my point plain, his "good information" did him absolutely no good in court, and won't do you any good either.

[Special11]

My Sister received a phone call from California Property tax section, asking how did she support her self in 2001. She stated that she was living off of her Severance Pay.
Now they want proof. Well the problem is she sold her house about 3years ago and Moved to another state and brought another house. Also her house was broken into and they took documents that would prove that. She also has a Police report stating such. What could they possiblly be looking for? Is there a way to answer them and be done with them? I told her to request exactly what they want in writing. Please advise

Thank you
Special11

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

if she lives in another state and the whole thing goes back to 2001 its just a fishing expedition. What tax could she possibly still owe at this late date and who cares anyway?

I would ignore it altogether and tell any callers no such person was located there.