Cracking The Code is Successful!

[Notorial dissent]

Originally Posted by mnchicago

Just my opinion.

Which is so very wrong.

There is nothing in the Constitution, or the 16th Amendment restricting Congress’s authority on who or what it can tax, with the exception of imports. The ONLY Federal employees nonsense has been bounced every time it has come up, for the simple fact that it is nonsense, conversely, there was a great deal of discussion about whether it actually could tax Federal or State employees, until the law was changed to include govt employees.

To put not too fine a point on it, using Hendrickson’s CTC nonsense is a sure fire guarantee of a tax audit and the eventual headaches that follow when the return is declared frivolous and the filer then given the opportunity to file correctly and honestly or face further penalties and perjury charges. At this point any return filed according to the CTC method is routed for review, which means you are now on the IRS radar and they will review everything before taking action, which won’t include accepting the return as valid. Filing using Pete’s nonsense is an automatic perjury charge, so far from being successful, it is a dead bang certified loser, as Hendrickson has now found out. He lost the civil case, and the criminal case will not be far off. The court declared him, his returns, and his “method” a crock. At this point he is only carrying on a delaying action, which he will ultimately lose.

[Lawdog]

Notorial: Congress may not tax EXPORTS. Tariffs are taxes on imports, and this country has a long history of using them. Other than that, your post is correct.

[indago]

Notorial dissent wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------------
There is nothing in the Constitution, or the 16th Amendment restricting Congress’s authority on who or what it can tax
-------------------------------------------------------------

Then you haven't read the Constitution, and you are an absolute government toady...

[mertensv16]

Originally Posted by mnchicago

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

Absolute nonsense. The income tax has never been restricted to the income of federal employees; read the Springer case, the first Supreme Court decision upholding the federal income tax. It didn't involve a federal employee, yet Springer's income was taxed.

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" [sic] that support "beliefs."

Just my opinion.

Exactly. Uninformed opinion without a shred of legal support.

[Notorial dissent]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

Notorial: Congress may not tax EXPORTS. Tariffs are taxes on imports, and this country has a long history of using them. Other than that, your post is correct.

My bad, I was in a hurry and didn’t proof read carefully.

Originally Posted by indago

Notorial dissent wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------------
There is nothing in the Constitution, or the 16th Amendment restricting Congress’s authority on who or what it can tax
-------------------------------------------------------------

Then you haven't read the Constitution, and you are an absolute government toady...

Then pray enlighten us, since you seem to have found something that over the last 100 years they legal, judicial, and financial community seems to have missed.

Incidently, I do have a copy, have read it not only recently, but clear through on many occasions, and you are quite simply and factually WRONG.

Originally Posted by mnchicago

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

Since there is nothing in any part of the Constitution says anything even close to this, you are simply dreaming. Non-Federal employees have been taxed since at least the 1860's, so this isn’t even a new idea.

[indago]

Notorial dissent has posted:
-------------------------------------------------------------
Then pray enlighten us, since you seem to have found something that over the last 100 years they legal, judicial, and financial community seems to have missed.
-------------------------------------------------------------

Maybe it's just you that missed it, but you could start HERE

[mertensv16]

If you believe that an unapportioned income tax applies only to privileges, perhaps you can explain the instances in which it has been upheld in the absence of a privilege -- for example, embezzlement income.

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

Originally Posted by mertensv16

If you believe that an unapportioned income tax applies only to privileges, perhaps you can explain the instances in which it has been upheld in the absence of a privilege -- for example, embezzlement income.

criminal activity is a govt-regulated venue.

[indago]

mertensv16 mercilessly mouthed:
---------------------------------------------------------------
If you believe that an unapportioned income tax applies only to privileges, perhaps you can explain the instances in which it has been upheld in the absence of a privilege -- for example, embezzlement income.
---------------------------------------------------------------


Are you attempting to infect us with the notion that "embezzlement" is a right?

[mertensv16]

Originally Posted by indago

Are you attempting to infect us with the notion that "embezzlement" is a right?

What a non sequitur. Of course it's not a right -- but it's not a privileged activity, either (in fact, it's the exact opposite of a privileged activity). Now, how about explaining how it is that embezzlement income (as well as any other income earned from illegal activities) is taxable with an unapportioned tax, given your claim that such a tax must be based upon privileges.