Cracking The Code is Successful!

[yebliker]

This is a fallacious argument. If the requirement for apportionment were relieved, the 16th would DEFINITELY confer new powers of taxation. That is undeniable. The logical conclusion is that the 16th amendment was only created as a means of clarification that an income tax is not a tax on the source.

Originally Posted by mertensv16

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)

[mertensv16]

What the Brushaber court meant was that the 16th didn't give Congress the power to tax something new. Since Congress has always had the power to tax incomes, the only "new power" it received as a result of the 16th was the power to tax investment income without apportionment. This relates solely to the method of exercising the power of taxation, not to its subject matter.

[yebliker]

Yes, just like you probably blame the Beatles for Charlie Manson and the Helter Skelter killings.

If that couple claimed to have read CtC and still did the things purported, they are either lying or couldn't understand the book, or the court is lying about the connection. What was stated is in direct opposition to the truth pointed out in Cracking the Code.

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Let's see. Footnote 2 from the decision:


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

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

Originally Posted by KarenM

I think you need to do additional research as to is required to pay the gift and estate taxes.

You'll be surprised by the results.

i did and you are right, i am surprised.

the issue is not "income taxes", its "internal revenue" which comes from a variety of sources. So gift and estate are actually transfer taxes.

Ok- so now how do we identify gifts etc? We run into the same issue with 'income'- any transfer could be characterized in a number of ways, or not at all.

Every exchange based on goodwill is a gift- so just as it costs me expenses to obtain income it costs me goodwill to obtain gifts, and vice versa.

just an example.

and then various persons can be created to give under the limit to as many other persons anyway...unless the transaction is registered a certain way it would be very difficult to prove there was any gifting at all.

if you cant prove it then it doesn't exist. mere belief is not enough in law.

Just an example.

It looks like the real nexus of transfer is the registration of the wealth- intangibles, real estate, accounts, etc.

[maddysmith]

As presented by the Internal Revenue Service, the code appears illogical, inconsistent and incomprehensible. As presented, the code defies practically the entire Bill of Rights– requiring citizens to testify against themselves, allowing searches and seizures without warrants, levying fines and penalties without trials and imposing a tax on the basic right to earn a living.


maddysmith
Credit Card Debt

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Right to the Castle

At present your argument seems STUPID. It is YOUR STATEMENTS that seem to be not founded on the constituion.

The Bill of rights has ALWAYS AND FOREVER allowed for searches and seizures without warrant. The other requirement is that is REASONABLE.



As anyone without their entire head shoved up the patriot community's @ss knows is that a warrant has NEVER been needed under U.S. law for purposes of search and seizure. Only that the search is reasonable is the requirement.

Go get a library card and start to get a clue.

What is YOUR definition of "reasonable?"

[BOBT12]

Originally Posted by Right to the Castle

At present your argument seems STUPID. It is YOUR STATEMENTS that seem to be not founded on the constituion.

The Bill of rights has ALWAYS AND FOREVER allowed for searches and seizures without warrant. The other requirement is that is REASONABLE.



As anyone without their entire head shoved up the patriot community's @ss knows is that a warrant has NEVER been needed under U.S. law for purposes of search and seizure. Only that the search is reasonable is the requirement.

Go get a library card and start to get a clue.

Are you nuts, if the search is reasonable the government has the warrant approved. No warrant=unreasonable! Where is the support for your view?

[Ecclesiastes]

Originally Posted by maddysmith

As presented by the Internal Revenue Service, the code appears illogical, inconsistent and incomprehensible.

There are some parts of the IRC that are quite complicated, but from what I've seen people in this forum seem to stumble over concepts like "income," or "compensation for services," or "every person."

Originally Posted by maddysmith

As presented, the code defies practically the entire Bill of Rights– requiring citizens to testify against themselves, allowing searches and seizures without warrants, levying fines and penalties without trials and imposing a tax on the basic right to earn a living.

Taking your points (such as they are) in order:

1. The 5th Amendment only applies to CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS or to testimony that would incriminate. Nothing in the Constitution prevents compelled testimony on civil issues such as taxes. Remember: Even OJ Simpson was required to testify against himself after he was acquitted and the issue was money damages for wrongful death.

2. I've never heard of any case in which the IRS has conducted a search without a search warrant. If you know of any, prove it.

3. There is usually a right to a hearing before property is seized, and there is always a remedy after the property is seized. For example, before the IRS can levy on a bank account, there has to be a valid assessment, which means that either the taxpayer filed a return and self-assessed the tax, or the IRS issued a notice of deficiency and the taxpayer had the right to petition the Tax Court.

4. There is always a right to a hearing before a penalty is imposed. Even a frivolous return penalty can be contested in a collection due process hearing, and appealed to the Tax Court.

5. There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits a tax on "the basic right to earn a living." The only restrictions on taxes in the Constitution are (a) no taxes on exports, (b) all direct taxes must be apportioned, and (c) all income taxes and other indirect taxes must be geographically uniform. Nothing about "the basic right to earn a living."

[Shoonra]

There have been plenty of court decisions (including the Supreme Court) on the relation of the Fifth Amendment to the income tax.

Generally, the IRS is interested only in how much money you took in -- not how it was gotten. Giving the IRS the correct amounts - from "miscellaneous" activities - without articulating that the money was from drug smuggling, etc., pretty much satisfies the IRS.

The Fifth Amendment protects frrom incrimination -- meaning criminal prosecution. The Fifth Amendment does not protect from paying more in taxes.

There have been instances, in tax cases, of the court rejecting a Fifth Amendment plea unless the defendant can describe a situation in which answering the particular question would actually and plausibly result in his criminal prosecution. This is a very awkward question to answer but the courts can refuse to allow a Fifth Amendment plea if they don't get a satisfactory answer. Blanket Fifth Amendment pleas as simply rejected; the plea has to be to a specific question.

[mnchicago]

Saturday 12 July 2008

I cringe over threads like this, and I only read this current
page. It would ruin my day to go back any further.

Why?

> What the Brushaber court meant was that the 16th
> didn't give Congress the power to tax something new.
> Since Congress has always had the power to tax
> incomes, the only "new power" it received as a result
> of the 16th was the power to tax investment income
> without apportionment. This relates solely to the
> method of exercising the power of taxation, not to its
> subject matter.

The only income that Congress had/has the power to
tax was the income of federal employees, "from whatever
source."

There was no "new power" received as a result of
the 16th. It merely reiterates that Congress always
had the power to tax federal employees, and because
they were/are federal employees and subject to the
plenary powers of Congress to pass laws in the federal
arena, apportional taxes did not apply, only on the
land of the states of the Union where apportionment
was constitutional required.

It surprises me that not many people are taking the time
to fully understand the importance of a lot of the factual
information available on this site, and instead, fall back
on half-truths or "arguements" that support "beliefs."

Just my opinion.