Why The IRS Can’t Prevail In The 16th Amendment Case

[Freedomless]

Nothing is hidden that will not be exposed. http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47467

[B Rookard]

Originally Posted by Freedomless

Nothing is hidden that will not be exposed. http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47467

The 16th Amendment is irrelevant ... and Benson's case is a sure loser.

At one time the 16th Amendment was needed to get around the decision in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust. In Pollock, the court held that a tax on the income from real property was so close to a tax on the underlying property that it needed to be apportioned. Thus, the court viewed a tax on income as a tax on the underlying source.

The court acknowledged that a tax on the income from other sources would still be considered an excise.

In order to get around this decision, the 16th Amendment was proposed and passed.

In construing the 16th Amendment, the Supreme Court, in Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, held that the Amendment prevented looking to the source of the income in order to take an income tax out of the category of indirect taxation.

In later cases, the court abandoned the theory of Pollock that a tax on income is a tax on the underlying source. New York ex rel Cohn v. Graves, 300 U.S. 308.

In abandoning the theory of Pollock, the Supreme Court rendered the 16th Amendment no longer necessary. If the Amendment was only needed to get around the Supreme Court decision ... and the Supreme Court no longer believes the dubious theory of Pollock ... then it is clear that the Court would never render another decision like Pollock.

Thus, it should be clear that the Supreme Court will NEVER view an income tax as a "direct tax" ever again.

So, here's the rub for Bill Benson ... he can say that the 16th Amendment was never ratified.

Fine. Let the 16th Amendment be repealed.

Benson now would have to have the Supreme Court declare the income tax to be a direct tax ... and they won't do that. The Supreme Court abandoned Pollock, and so that leaves the prior case of Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586, which holds that an income tax is an "excise or duty."

In short, trying to have the 16th Amendment repealed ends up doing absolutely nothing. The Supreme Court will never declare the income tax to be a direct tax ever again.

[PANICPASS]

If the 16 Amendment were somehow repeal tomorrow morning at 9:00 am, it would not change a thing, other than IRS would have to start giving people a correct presentation of the law to justify the taxes. The IRS and the excise tax on juristic persons would continue on as usual.

[Shoonra]

Benson doesn't have a prayer of winning. One reason is that his arguments have already been tried in court and consistently rejected; for example, in United States v. Thomas (7th Cir. 1986) 788 F.2d 1250, certiorari denied 479 U.S. 853. http://www.fraudsandscams.com/Benson/thomas.htm .

There have been many other instances. Some actually mention Benson's book. A few actually involved Benson, such as United States v. Benson (7th Cir. 1995) 67 F.3d 641 rehearding denied 74 F.3d 152, which sent him to prison (4 yrs) for tax evasion.

Another reason is fairly simple. Never did any of the state legislatures, nor any of their members, nor any of their Representatives in Congress ever step up and say We didn't ratify this, or We thought we were voting on something else, or anything of the sort. As soon as the 16th Amendment was proclaimed as adopted, Congress set to enacting an income tax law that simultaneously eliminated most of the very burdensome tariffs that had been the primary source of govt revenue up to that point. Congress never doubted that it had been adopted, and nobody involved in the ratification process - not even from States that Benson says didn't really ratify it - ever said anything to raise any doubts. This is the opposite of what happened with the "Phantom 13th Amendment".

It looks like Benson's selling timeshares in prison cells again.

Actually, we could all predict who will win. It would only be prediction. The lawyer in the article says one thing, the dissenters here say the opposite.

No one really knows until the fat lady sings, now, do they?

Henry Franklin

[dadmoonbunny]

and he posesses documentation that shows the 16th was never formally ratified, Then I advocate the following measures be taken immediately:

1) Dig up the body of the person responsible for saying it was verified and bury him is an unmarked, salted, non-honorable gravesite. As well, let the mortal remains of anyone involved in perpetuating the lie be treated in the same fashion, that their souls may not find peace for eternity.

2) Let Benson scan his documentation and post it to his web site, or other public venue of his choosing so that the public sees it.

3) Let such action as may be deemed necessary be taken by the sheep.

Now, we all know (sic) that the sixteenth was NEVER ratified, as is the case with the thirteenth. I am satisfied with the knowledge that this is correct. However, even if my suggestions were to be taken and put into action, the sheep would never do a bloody thing to disturb thier football watching, beer guzzling, fornicating comfort. Absolutly no way that they will allow thier comfort to be disturbed. This is the ONLY reason why folks like Benson cannot and never will get a FAIR trial. So, Mr. Benson, my suggestion to you is this:

Keep up the good fight. May GOD bless you. De Oppresso Liber

3)

[PANICPASS]

"This is the opposite of what happened with the "Phantom 13th Amendment"."

The 13th Amendment had nothing to do with taxes. Nobody was afraid to speak up about the 13th Amendment. However, this case is about Congress' bread and butter , i.e, TAXES. We cannot rely on Congress to do anything about the taxes beause all of them are COWARDS.

[Shoonra]

Re the "Phantom 13th Amendment": When I said the business with the 16th Amendment was the opposite of the Phantom Amendment, I meant by that:

In 1818, as soon as Congressionally-contracted printed had churned out a pocket edition of the Constitution, intended for distribution to and by Members of Congress, and some MCs noticed that it contained the 1810 proposed amendment as if adopted, they PROMPTLY raised a fuss about, and got the President to issue (via his Secretary of State) two reports establishing that it had not been adopted, and thereafter the Constitutions distributed by Congress did not include that proposed amendment.

With the 16th Amendment, nobody doubted or denied (within the lifetime of anyone involved in its ratification) that it had been adequately ratified -- not even from the states that Benson claims didn't ratify it.

[Freedomless]

Then why does it still stand. You spout nothing that shows that you seek the truth. Most here are seeking the truth. We own no one taxes on our labor. We have many (most) who serve as government officials who are in of the real 13th Amendment. We have family courts who are putting and keeping mainly men in involuntary servitude and slavery. (mainly through alimony) And we have judges who are handing down sentences that contradict the consitution. (which makes these laws void) All of these issued have been verified. Our founding fathers knew that if attorneys ran the government the people would not have the representation that was intended. God will not stand by forever, his word tells us this to be true, and allow this type of government exist. More and more men and women are waking up to the deceit that has perpetrated by our government. It is time, that those who suposedly represent the people, to right the wrongs.