Cracking The Code is Successful!

[mertensv16]

Originally Posted by ThomPaine

and the 16th ammendment did not create the income tax, whether or not it was properly ratified is irrelelvant. Several cases have stated that this ammendment conferred no new powers of taxation to Congress. Whatever they had the power to tax before is the same power they have now and it aint much...

Pollack, Stanton and a few others that I am sure can be easily found..

So can the following:

It is clear on the face of this text [the 16th Amendment] that it does not purport to confer power to levy income taxes in a generic sense, - an authority already possessed and never questioned, - or to limit and distinguish between one kind of income taxes and another, but that the whole purpose of the Amendment was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from apportionment from a consideration of the source whence the income was derived.
Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, 19 (1916) (empasis added)

See also Springer v. U.S., 102 U.S. 586 (1881), upholding the constitutionality of the income tax enacted during the Civil War.

[mertensv16]

Originally Posted by hippy

Not sure about Mertens version, but the historical version is that those people without a ssn were not taxed federally on their labor.
My grandfather and grandmother were never taxed on their labor until they applied for a ssn.

The only reason your grandparents may not have been taxed was that their income fell below the exemption amount. Having a SSN has absolutely nothing to do with the constitutional power to tax. Congress taxed incomes long before there were SSN's -- see the Civil War income tax statues and the Revenue Act of 1913.

The power to tax comes from Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution. There's no requirement for federal employment, SSN's, or any other kind of federal nexus. One of the very first taxes Congress enacted was a tax on carriages, upheld in Hylton v. U.S., 3 U.S. 171 (1791), and it involved no federal connection of any kind. See also The License Tax Cases, 72 U.S. 462 (1866), upholding the federal taxation of purely intrastate activities not involving any federal nexus.

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

Originally Posted by mertensv16

The only reason your grandparents may not have been taxed was that their income fell below the exemption amount. Having a SSN has absolutely nothing to do with the constitutional power to tax. Congress taxed incomes long before there were SSN's -- see the Civil War income tax statues and the Revenue Act of 1913.

The power to tax comes from Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution. There's no requirement for federal employment, SSN's, or any other kind of federal nexus. One of the very first taxes Congress enacted was a tax on carriages, upheld in Hylton v. U.S., 3 U.S. 171 (1791), and it involved no federal connection of any kind. See also The License Tax Cases, 72 U.S. 462 (1866), upholding the federal taxation of purely intrastate activities not involving any federal nexus.

The subject of this thread is really about employment and labor income taxes. Social Security is the nexus that is used since 1935. Before then there may have been a more limited hook for government employees etc- I have heard of 9 digit numbers being used for one reason or another since the civil war. No government the size of the U.S. could possibly operate without counting its chickens very carefully.

The reason our grandparents were not taxed on employment was that they were not taxably employed.

The constitutional power to tax has nothing to do with the matter at hand. The simple fact is that the way the above taxes function is based on social security.

Before 1935 there were no general employment taxes.

other sources were taxed but thats irrelevant.

since 1935 there are still plenty of income taxes that have nothing to with wages salary compensation or any similar item.

Like capital gains, dividend, interest and whatever else there is. I don't need a social security or other tax number to be liable for these- but the only payers of these items must with-hold absent a tax number.

Yet...a tax number is required to be liable for capital gains in the first place, which is interesting. Foreigners are exempt from capital gains.

So the history of taxation 1861-1935 is explained without social security because there are any number of attachable points. The point we are talking about here is NOW, since 1935, regarding employment. Where, regardless of the constitution, this is how the law and the reality work. Which is just what Hippy was saying. Hippy was not speculating, or diverting, Hippy was stating facts.

One of the very first taxes Congress enacted was a tax on carriages, upheld in Hylton v. U.S., 3 U.S. 171 (1791), and it involved no federal connection of any kind. See also The License Tax Cases, 72 U.S. 462 (1866), upholding the federal taxation of purely intrastate activities not involving any federal nexus.

There must have been some way to even keep track of this so there had to be a number or registration somehow. Maybe "they", in their omniscience, just emoted "taxation" onto carriages...

[yebliker]

Wrong, Shoonra.

There is no connection between the defendants and CtC. This document claims that the defendants state that "wage earnings are not 'taxable profit' ". Anyone who has read Cracking the Code, and along with it, 26 USC, knows that "wages" and "income" are by nature taxable, since they are specially-defined within the code as such. Of course they lost.

This is 180 degrees from what the law says, and what people who have read and understood Cracking the Code practice. An educated person would never say things such as "wages are not income" or "income is not taxable". Those statements are patently false.

If however, a person says that "not all that comes in is income" or "not all my earnings are taxable" , this is true according to law. These sets of statements DO NOT mean the same thing.

Unless you have read Cracking the Code (preferable a number of times), please refrain from lumping any garden-variety tax protestor case in with Pete Hendrickson or Cracking the Code. Intentionally or not, you are misinforming the public, and mischaracterizing people.

-Yebliker

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Some other people who weren't successful with CtC:

US v. Beverly J. (& Darrell) Hill (D.Az 12/22/05) 97 AFTR2d 548:

http://www.getmytaxesback.com/docgen/doc0190.pdf

[indago]

farmer_giles_of_ham wrote:
-----------------------------------------------------------
There must have been some way to even keep track of this so there had to be a number or registration somehow. Maybe "they", in their omniscience, just emoted "taxation" onto carriages...
-----------------------------------------------------------

CHECK HERE

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by yebliker

Wrong, Shoonra.
There is no connection between the defendants and CtC.

Let's see. Footnote 2 from the decision:

It appears that Defendant {Darrell Hill} discovered this new practice from the book by Peter Hendrickson, Cracking the Code: The Fascinating Truth About Taxation in America. ... Defendants included the book with their answers and have avowed their belief in the book's interpretation of the IRC.

Gee, sounds to me like there's a connection between the defendants and CtC!

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

Originally Posted by indago

farmer_giles_of_ham wrote:
-----------------------------------------------------------
There must have been some way to even keep track of this so there had to be a number or registration somehow. Maybe "they", in their omniscience, just emoted "taxation" onto carriages...
-----------------------------------------------------------

CHECK HERE

thanks for the link, I read the item but I failed to discern how exactly this tax was administered, unless it was by random decree. How did the government know there were any carriages, that one had been taxed, or was due payment?

Perhaps this was the root of the following "century of error"...a direct tax is impossible to administer unless it be upon an indirect object, like a state.

[indago]

farmer_giles_of_ham wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps this was the root of the following "century of error"...a direct tax is impossible to administer unless it be upon an indirect object, like a state.
--------------------------------------------------------------


From the posting:
--------------------------------------------------------------
Constitutionalists argued, in the Congress, while the bill was heatedly debated, that the tax was, in fact, upon persons who owned such carriages, and was a direct tax upon the person, or his property, and was unconstitutional; direct taxes, under the Constitution of the United States, were to be apportioned to the States, and not the States' inhabitants.
--------------------------------------------------------------

Government was never granted the power to lay a direct tax upon the inhabitants of the States.

[ThomPaine]

Mert,

I never said that there was no power to collect any income tax of any kind. The income tax is an Indirect (excise) tax, always has been. What does an excise cover?

A priviledge or an activity, typically one that is permitted (like the manufacture of firearms) or one that has restrictions or regulations (the purchase of cigarettes or beer). If you buy beer in New York, you pay the same as everyone else, no way to avoid that tax except to not buy beer. If you are of legal age and buy beer, you pay the tax, simple as that.

In the case of a tax on income, the scope of the income tax is very limited and has been since its inception.

I will refrain further from debating the source or powers of the US Individual Income Tax.

Thom

[mertensv16]

Originally Posted by ThomPaine

The income tax is an Indirect (excise) tax, always has been. What does an excise cover?

A priviledge or an activity, typically one that is permitted (like the manufacture of firearms) or one that has restrictions or regulations (the purchase of cigarettes or beer)

While an excise tax can be based upon a privilege or upon a regulated activity, it doesn't have to be. Some excises involve neither, such as the gift tax.

While taxes levied upon or collected from persons because of their general ownership of property may be taken to be direct, Pollock v. Farmers Loan & Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429, 158 U.S. 601, 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 [the gift tax] is of the latter class.
Bromley v. McCaughn, 280 U.S. 124 (1929) (emphasis added)

If the gratuitous transfer of property can be taxed via an excise, then so can the receipt of property in consideration for the performance of services or the receipt of any other type of income.

In the case of a tax on income, the scope of the income tax is very limited and has been since its inception.

Sorry, but there's nothing in the Constitution that limits the scope of an income tax (with the sole exception of income earned by state and local governments, which the Supreme Court has held to be exempt from federal taxation based upon the concept of federalism implicit in the Constitution). No case has ever struck down the imposition of an income tax on the grounds that no privilege or "excisable activity" was involved or that the subject matter of the tax was otherwise beyond Congress' taxing power.

Face it: the only legal limit on what types of income are taxable is what Congress chooses to tax and what it chooses not to tax, and it's always been that way.