Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Debating Brian #9782

Expand Messages
  • acta@capital.net
    Dear Mr. Rookard, Your May 19th response to acta (Post #9782) reads in part: Whether the 16th Amendment was ratified or not was rendered a moot point with the
    Message 1 of 3 , Jun 1, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Mr. Rookard,

      Your May 19th response to acta (Post #9782) reads in part:

      "Whether the 16th Amendment was ratified or not was rendered a
      moot point with the decision in New York ex rel. Cohn v. Graves, 300
      U.S. 308. The 16th Amendment is no longer needed."

      On the contrary, the Cohn court most certainly did not undo what was
      done by the Pollack court. The Cohn court was presented with the
      question; "whether a state may constitutionally tax a resident upon
      income received from rents of land located without the state and from
      interest on bonds physically without the state and secured by
      mortgages upon lands similarly situated, without violating the due
      process clause of the 14th Amendment."

      Cohn was decided in 1937, long after the "adoption" of the 16th
      Amendment, which "authorized" a FEDERAL tax on income from whatever
      source derived and without apportionment. Would the Cohn court have
      decided the case the way it did absent the 16th Amendment? Absolutely
      not! The world in 1937 was not questioning the fraudulent nature of
      the 16th Amendment (Mr. Benson was only a child).

      The only federal question presented to the Cohn court was a question
      of equal protection of the law and due process. Cohn argued that the
      State of New York could not impose such a tax because it was in
      substance and effect a tax on real estate and tangible property
      located in New Jersey, in violation of the due process clause of the
      14th Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court held, given the presence of
      the 16th Amendment, that the State of New York could tax its citizens
      who earn their money from sources outside the state. NOTE: This is
      not unlike the 861 argument which asserts that the IRC authorized the
      federal government to tax its citizens who earn their money from
      sources outside the country.

      Sincerely,

      Bob Schulz
    • Brian Rookard
      Bob, ... Yes, that s right ... he argued that a tax on income from real and personal property was a tax on the real estate. This was what the Pollock court had
      Message 2 of 3 , Jun 1, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        Bob,

        You said:



        > The only federal question presented to the Cohn court was a
        > question of equal protection of the law and due process. Cohn
        > argued that the State of New York could not impose such a tax
        > because it was in substance and effect a tax on real estate and
        > tangible property located in New Jersey, in violation of the due
        > process clause of the 14th Amendment.



        Yes, that's right ... he argued that a tax on income from real and
        personal property was a tax on the real estate.

        This was what the Pollock court had decided over 40 years earlier ...
        that a tax on income from real and personal property was, in effect,
        a tax on the underlying property.

        But what did the Court rule in the Graves case ... that such a tax WAS
        NOT a tax on the underlying property. They said:



        --Neither analysis of the two types of taxes, nor consideration of
        --the bases upon which the power to impose them rests, supports the
        --contention that a tax on income is a tax on the land which produces
        --it. The incidence of a tax on income differs from that of a tax on
        --property. Neither tax is dependent upon the possession by the
        --taxpayer of the subject of the other. His income may be taxed,
        --although he owns no property, and his property may be taxed,
        --although it produces no income. The two taxes are measured by
        --different standards, the one by the amount of income received over
        --a period of time, the other by the value of the property at a
        --particular date.
        --
        --New York v. Graves, 300 U.S. 308,



        So a tax on income IS NOT a tax on the land.

        This CLEARLY contradicts the Pollock court.

        In the Graves case, in Butler's dissent he clearly states:



        --By our decisions it is established that a tax on income received
        --for the use of land is in legal effect a tax upon the land itself.
        --f. Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 580 , 581;
        --Id., 158 U.S. 601, 627 , 628, 637; [other cites omitted]
        --
        --Graves, supra (Butler dissenting.)



        So, Butler is dissenting against the majority in Graves by arguing
        that the Pollock decision held that a tax on income was a tax on the
        land itself. Obviously, he is dissenting because the Court abandoned
        the rule in Pollock.

        The effect of the Graves case has been noted elsewhere:



        --Finally, in the case of New York ex rel. Cohn v. Graves, 300 U.S.
        --308, 57 S.Ct. 466, 81 L.Ed. 666 (1937), the Supreme Court in effect
        --overruled Pollock, and in so doing rendered the Sixteenth Amendment
        --unnecessary, when it sustained New York's income tax on income
        --derived from real property in New Jersey. Id. at 314-15, 57 S.Ct.
        --at 468-69.
        --
        --Ficalora v. C.I.R., 751 F.2d 85



        And ...



        --The sixteenth amendment, which permits imposition of a federal
        --income tax without apportionment among the states, was necessitated
        --by the five to four decision in Pollock v. Farmer's Loan & Trust
        --Co. Forty-two years later, with its decision in New York ex rel.
        --Cohn v. Graves, the Court in effect overruled Pollock and in so
        --doing rendered the sixteenth amendment redundant.
        --
        --Constitutional Law, 4th Ed., Nowak & Rotunda, 1991, pg. 189


        Looks like the Graves case did something doesn't it?


        Sincerely,

        Brian Rookard













        --- In legality-of-income-tax@y..., acta@c... wrote:
        > Dear Mr. Rookard,
        >
        > Your May 19th response to acta (Post #9782) reads in part:
        >
        > "Whether the 16th Amendment was ratified or not was rendered a
        > moot point with the decision in New York ex rel. Cohn v. Graves,
        300
        > U.S. 308. The 16th Amendment is no longer needed."
        >
        > On the contrary, the Cohn court most certainly did not undo what
        was
        > done by the Pollack court. The Cohn court was presented with the
        > question; "whether a state may constitutionally tax a resident upon
        > income received from rents of land located without the state and
        from
        > interest on bonds physically without the state and secured by
        > mortgages upon lands similarly situated, without violating the due
        > process clause of the 14th Amendment."
        >
        > Cohn was decided in 1937, long after the "adoption" of the 16th
        > Amendment, which "authorized" a FEDERAL tax on income from whatever
        > source derived and without apportionment. Would the Cohn court have
        > decided the case the way it did absent the 16th Amendment?
        Absolutely
        > not! The world in 1937 was not questioning the fraudulent nature of
        > the 16th Amendment (Mr. Benson was only a child).
        >
        > The only federal question presented to the Cohn court was a
        question
        > of equal protection of the law and due process. Cohn argued that
        the
        > State of New York could not impose such a tax because it was in
        > substance and effect a tax on real estate and tangible property
        > located in New Jersey, in violation of the due process clause of
        the
        > 14th Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court held, given the presence of
        > the 16th Amendment, that the State of New York could tax its
        citizens
        > who earn their money from sources outside the state. NOTE: This is
        > not unlike the 861 argument which asserts that the IRC authorized
        the
        > federal government to tax its citizens who earn their money from
        > sources outside the country.
        >
        > Sincerely,
        >
        > Bob Schulz
      • JAMES\DORIS BAKER
        Big ata boy, Bob, Keep up the good work. Jim Baker Dear Mr. Rookard, Your May 19th response to acta (Post #9782) reads in part: Whether the 16th Amendment
        Message 3 of 3 , Jun 2, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          Big ata boy, Bob, Keep up the good work.

          Jim Baker
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.