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

MOTION TO DISMISS INCOME TAX INDICTMENT-- Rebuttal of US v Vroman, 975 F2d 669

Expand Messages
  • rebel382003
    Everyone is aware that individuals in the tax resistance movement have claimed indictments used to prosecute non-filers and other resisters have never alleged
    Message 1 of 28 , Sep 12, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Everyone is aware that individuals in the tax resistance movement have claimed indictments used to prosecute non-filers and other resisters have never alleged a law that makes an individual responsible (liable) for an income tax. The courts have consistently rejected the claims with the Vroman case being a prominent case.

      The following academic article is a legal Motion composed for a typical defendant to consider if a challenge to the indictment is under consideration.

      May the morning always bring beautiful sunrises. [censor that Bear !!]

      Olde Reb
      *********************************


      STUDY AIDS

      A student of criminal law, familiar with writing and serving motions, might review: FEDERAL PROCEDURAL FORMS, LAWYER'S EDITION by Lawyers Cooperative Publishing {KF 8836 F4}. Volume 7 on Criminal Procedure includes §20:212 Defects in the Indictment or Information, §20:217 is Failure to Charge Offense. Volume 9 includes §22:801 regarding citation of laws, §22:927 Defects in the Indictment, and §22:938 Failure to Charge Offense. Also see volume 27 FEDERAL PROCEDURE, LAWYERS EDITION, §§ 62.487 to 62.503, KF 8835 F43.

      Conviction of a crime by an indictment that does not charge an offense can be challenged even after completion of sentence. See the above. Presentation forms are described in WEST FEDERAL FORMS, volume 5 {KF8836 W4}. §7302 is titled Motion by Defendant to Dismiss Indictment. §7308 has a motion for failure to state a crime. MOORE'S FEDERAL PRACTICE (KF8820 A313 M63 Third Edition) §§607.04 and 612.04 are current and excellent.

      ********************************************************************


      Court caption

      MOTION TO DISMISS INDICTMENT
      FOR FAILURE TO CHARGE AN OFFENSE

      The defendant is aware that on numerous occasions in various income tax cases challenges that income tax indictments were flawed have been presented to their courts---and the courts have denied the motions as frivolous and have imposed sanctions. If this analysis is frivolous, the defendant is certain the court will identify the error in logic or law and properly chastise this imprudence.

      Opinions by courts to uphold indictments are similar, as are the allegations made within the indictments. Indictments typically rely upon IRC 7201 or 7203 as imposing an income tax and make numerous conclusions of law. Because of the similarity, an appellate court Opinion will be examined as representative of the grounds this court might use to dismiss a challenge to the instant indictment.

      A bellwether case that compiles considerable discussion is US v Vroman, 975 F2d 669 (9th. Cir. 1992). The grounds identified and analyzed by the Vroman court to uphold the conviction, which are similar to other circuits, include:

      1) the indictment alleged a known legal duty for an income tax by citing 26 USC 7203;
      2) the defendant was proven to be a taxpayer required to file an income tax return;
      3) the defendant was not prejudiced by failure to cite 26 USC #6012; and
      4) FRCrP 7(c)(3) condones an indictment that alleges an erroneous offense.



      ITEM ONE: IRC 7203 identifies an income tax violation.

      Quotes from Vroman include the indictment must "contain the elements of the offense charged and fairly inform a defendant of the charge…" and "The indictment here set(s) out the elements of section 7203 with sufficient clarity to apprise Vroman of the charges
      against him and is drawn with sufficient specificity to foreclose further prosecution upon the same facts."

      The requirements established for a valid indictment compose a long history. The essential object behind the evolved verbiage is the historical descendent of 800 years adjudicatory evolution. Few remaining clauses of King John's forced acceptance of the Magna Carte are as lucid today as the provision within the 39th paragraph: "No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the law of the land."

      When our forefathers penned the Constitution of the United States, the provision was preserved in Article III, Section 2. "The Judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States…" Any document that does not present a case to the court does not authorize a use of the power of the court. Osborn v Bank of the United States, 22 US 738, 819 (1824). In addition, the Fifth Amendment also mandates indictments allege an offense to grant jurisdiction to a court. Ex Parte Bain, 121 US 1 (1887).

      A valid indictment is a fundamental component of Due Process. "No principle of procedural due process is more clearly established than that notice of the specific charge, and a chance to be heard in a trial of the issues raised by that charge, if desired, are among the constitutional rights of every accused in a criminal proceeding in all courts, state or federal… It is as much a violation of due process to send an accused to prison following conviction of a charge on which he was never tried as it would be to convict him upon a charge that was never made." Cole v Arkansas, 333 US 196, 201 (1947). And again: "Conviction upon a charge not made would be sheer denial of due process." De Jonge v Oregon, 299 US 353, 362. (1937); Dunn v US, 442 US 100, 106-107.

      Terminology has evolved over time. Whether it is called the Law of the Land, a Case, a charge, an offense, or a crime, it relates to the same objective. Current verbiage requires a government pursuing a tax obligation to identify a "known legal duty" beholding to the tax agency. Cheek v US, 498 US 192 (1991).

      Casual readers of the Vroman opinion sometimes believe the court declared a listing of elements eliminates the necessity of alleging a law of the required "known legal duty." Such a conclusion would be inane. Elements are used to prove a variance from a required duty. If no duty is identified, the listing of elements would have nothing to prove.

      The term "element" is frequently accepted as synonymous with a fact. However, elements can include both facts and law as obliquely observed by the Vroman court: "26 USC 7203 requires the government to prove three elements: the taxpayer was required to file a return…" Hamling v U.S. 418 US 87, relied upon by Vroman, stated the situation: the indictment must "first contain the elements OF THE OFFENSE CHARGED and fairly informs a defendant OF THE CHARGE against which he must defend, and, second, enables him to plead an acquittal or conviction in bar of future prosecutions for the same offense." id. 117 (emphasis added). And again: "An indictment must set forth each element OF THE CRIME IT CHARGES." Almendarez v US, 523 US 224, 228 (1998). emphasis added. Hamling and other Supreme Court Opinions give no support for an indictment that relies exclusively upon elements without a charge being alleged.

      A lengthy record of Supreme Court adjudication has unwavering requirement for a charge to be alleged for a valid indictment: Ex Parte Bain, 121 US 1 (1887); Stirone v US, 361 US 212 (1960); Russell v US, 369 US 749 (1962); US v Miller, 471 US 130 (1985). "To uphold a conviction on a charge that was neither alleged in an indictment nor presented to a jury at trial offends the most basic notions of due process. Few constitutional principles are more firmly established than a defendant's right to be heard on the specific charges of which he is accused." Dunn v U.S., 442 US 100, 106 (1979).

      The Vroman court, along with numerous other appellate court Opinions, would have us believe the lawful duty was alleged by citing 26 USC #7201 or 7203. Indeed, the Vroman court declared the "…offense of failure to file an income tax return under 26 USC #7203 …" But how can 7203 identify the required known legal duty ?

      The Supreme Court, citing the Congressional Record, has observed Chapter 75, Part 1 (IRC 7201 through 7215) apply to all taxes. "Congress specifically stated that it placed all these provisions in the same part of the Code because it wished them to apply to taxes generally, including income taxes. See S. Rep. No. 1622, 83d Cong., 2d Sess., 147; H. R. Rep. No. 1337, 83d Cong., 2d Sess., 108." Sansone v United States, 380 US 343, 348 (1965).

      In U.S. v. Farr, 536 F3d 1174 (10th Cir. 2008), the Tenth Circuit labeled the provisions as generic. If they are generic and can apply to all taxes, they clearly cannot identify a duty for any specific tax.

      But the question still remains: Where did the Vroman court identify the defendant had a duty as a "taxpayer"? Or had taxable income ? Or was required to file forms ?

      Perhaps the uncertainty can be resolved by considering the second assertion by the Vroman court.

      2) the defendant was proven to be a taxpayer required to file an income tax return.

      The Vroman court declared the government must prove, as one of the elements, that "the taxpayer was required to file a(n income tax) return." In addition, the Vroman court declares "section 7203 sets out the elements with sufficient clarity to apprise [defendant] of the [income tax ] charges against him…"

      It appears to this defendant that indictments on behalf of the IRS are repeated conclusions of law based upon assumptions of law, such as: the defendant becomes a "taxpayer" upon accusation; any money received from wages or money deposited in a bank is "taxable income"; that receiving wages or depositing money in a bank establishes a responsibility for an individual to file forms with the federal government. Assumptions or conclusions of law have no standing.

      Rumor has it that the constitutional right of an individual to pursue a livelihood as secured within the clause of Liberty includes being paid for that labor and depositing such funds in a bank. Is the exercise of a constitutional right now subject to be purchased at a price or to an unidentified revenue tax ?? If that law exists, the element does not seem to be alleged and submitted to contestation.

      Does receiving funds from exercising the constitutional right to pursue a livelihood become an event that requires forms be filed with the government ? That substantial element has not been alleged and submitted to contestation.

      Rumor additionally has it that the courts are only concerned with the power to tax. If the power to tax exist, it is not a concern of the court if the tax destroys the object of taxation. As applied to the instant case, if the power to tax exists then Congress can confiscate 100 percent of a citizens earnings and provide for the citizen's existence only what pittance Congress grants. A nation of free sovereign citizens has been reduced to a nation of slaves---by only one law.

      If the act or event that makes an individual responsible for an income tax (the known duty) is not identified, the essential element of what must be proven has not even been alleged: By what law (element) has the defendant been alleged to have a legal duty as a "taxpayer"? By what law (element) has the defendant been required to have a legal duty to submit forms to the IRS ?? By what law (element) has wages received, or a deposit made, become a taxable value initiating a legal duty to the IRS ?? Nothing has been alleged that facts can prove.

      Even in civil actions, the absence of an essential element being claimed by the petitioner is taken as evidence that the element is non-existent. Scheid v Fanny Farmer, 859 F2d 434, 437; O'Brien v DiGrazia, 544 F2d 543, 546 n.3. "Because the missing element in the present case was essential, its complete absence …is a fatal defect…The first four elements…do not by themselves state ANY federal crime. The court thus had no jurisdiction to try (defendant) under that count…and its judgment must be vacated." US v Hooker, 841 F2d 1225, 1232 (4th cir 1988) emphasis in original. "The taxing statute must describe the transaction, service, or object to be taxed." US v Community TV, 327 F2d 797, 800. "The Sixth Amendment requires that an indictment (1) enumerate each prima facie element of the charged offense; (2) fairly inform the defendant of the charges filed against him…The purpose of the indictment is to provide the defendant with notice of the offense with which he is charged." Almendarez v US, 523 US 224, 228 (1998).

      The Vroman court clearly concluded the defendant was a "taxpayer." "Taxpayer" is a legal term identifying the object as "subject" to a specific tax. Ref. IRC 7701 (a)(14). A "subject" is an inferior position. The Supreme Court has declared taxation as a matter of sovereignty, and that over which an agency is not sovereign cannot be an object of taxation.. Are the citizens of the United States no longer sovereign ? Ref. Carlisle v. United States, 83 U.S. 147, 154 (1873).

      Since taxes can only be imposed by statute, we must look to the indictment to find the statute alleged to impose that subservient status. The only possible statute identified in the indictment is IRC 7203. Indeed, the Vroman court identifies §7203 as the responsible statute. But how can this be?

      IRC 7203 was used in Grosso v US, 390 US 62, in the prosecution of gambling violations of IRC §4401 and §4411. "Those liable for payment of that tax are required to submit each month Internal Revenue Service Form 730...failure to pay the excise tax and to file a return are separately punishable under 26 USC §7203." id 65. Notice should be taken that those "required" and "liable" are identified within Chapter 35 (§4401 to §4424) while punishment is established by §7203.

      IRC 7203 was also used in Marchetti v United States, 390 US 39, for gambling violations. US v Knox, 396 US 77, 82 (1969) also acknowledged IRC 7203 could have been used to prosecute wagering violations.

      IRC 7201 and 7203 were used in Ingram v US, 360 US 672, in violations of §4401, §4411, and §4421 wagering tax provisions. Ref. Footnote #1. The court declared: "Liability for the federal tax is imposed by §4401 and 4411 of the IRC…" id 675. The "known legal duty" was within Chapter 35; it was not in Chapter 75.

      IRC §§7201, 7203, and 7206 were also utilized in prosecutions of wagering tax violations by: US v Merlo, 704 F2d 331 (6th. Cir. 1983); US v Sheer, 278 F2d 67; Burks v US, 287 F2d 117; US v Shaffer, 291 F2d 689; US v Minker, 312 F2d 632; Bohn v US, 260 F2d 773; US v Claney, 276 F2d 617; US v Stoffey, 279 F2d 924; Application of Leahy, 298 F2d 233; George v US, 346 F2d 137; Tyler v US, 397 F2d 565; US v Stavros, 597 F2d 108; Edwards v US, 321 F2d 324; US v Sams, 340 F2d 1014; Scaglione v US, 396 F2d 219; US v Magliano, 336 F2d 817; Rutherford v US, 264 F2d 180; US v Gaydos, 310 F2d 883; US v Sette, 334 F2d 267; US v Simon, 241 F2d 308; Clay v US, 246 F2d 298; Merritt v US, 248 F2d 19; Field v US, 263 758; Barnhill v US, 279 F2d 105; Rosen v US, 293 F2d 938; US v Woodson, 303 F2d 49; US v Nicholson, 303 F2d 330; US v Brooks, 303 F2d 851; US v Marchointe, 309 F2d 435; US v Whiting, 311 F2d 191; US v Viale, 312 F2d 595; US v Grossman, 315 F2d 94; US v LaHaye, 548 F2d 474; US v McGee, 572 F2d 1097; US v Snyder, 549 F2d 171; US v Dumaine, 493 F2d 1257; Townsend v US, 253 F2d 461; US v Kessler, 449 F2d 1315; US v Haimowitx, 404 F2d 38; US v Willoz, 449 F2d 1321; US v Salerno, 330 FSup 1401; US v Wilson, 214 FSup 629, US v DiPrimio, 209 FSup 137; US v Nicholas, 224 FSup 310.

      IRC §7201, §7202, §7203, §7204 or §7210 were applied in violations of corporate/ employment tax requirements in: Ivan Allen Co, v US, 422 US 617 (1975) [IRC 7201 could be applied to IRC 531-537, footnote 11]; Gundlach v US, 262 F2d 72; US v Mollet, 290 F2d 273; US v Stevedores, 310 F2d 47; Botta v Scanlon, 314 F2d 392; Ryan v US, 314 F2d 306; US v Becker, 259 F2d 869; US v Rothbart, 723 F2d 752; Huges v US, 899 F2d 1495 (6th. Cir 1990) ; US v Gonzales, 58 F3d 506, (10th. cir 1995) ; US v Neal, 93 F3d 219 (6th. Cir 1996); US v Mounkes, 204 F3d 1024 (10th. Cir 2000).

      IRC §7201, §7203 or §7206 were utilized in prosecutions for liquor law violations in: Wilson v US, 320 F2d 493; US v Cook, 412 F2d 293; US v One Ford, 304 F2d 419; US v Champion, 387 F2d 561; Benefield v US, 370 F2d 912; US v Davis, 369 F2d 775; US v Goss, 353 F2d 671; Hyche v US, 286 F2d 248; Ingram v US, 241 F2d 708; Dowling v US, 249 F2d 746; Brown v US, 253 F2d 587; West v US, 259 F2d 868; O'Neal v US, 273 F2d 549; Tucker v US, 279 F2d 62; King v US, 282 F2d 398; Monnette v US, 299 F2d 847; Blumenfield v US, 306 F2d 892; US v Denton, 307 F2d 336; US v One Pontiac, 308 F2d 893; US v Lemons, 309 F2d 168; US v Ivey, 310 F2d 229; Davis v US, 385 F2d 919; US v Rector, 488 F2d 1079.

      IRC 7203 was used for a violation of §4461 involving coin operated gaming devices in US v Menk, 260 FSup 784.

      IRC 7201 and 7206 were applied in US v Pesaturo, 476 F3d 60, (1st cir. 2007), US v Wisenbaker, 14 F3d 1022 (5th. cir. 1994), and US v Townsend, 31 F3d 262 (5th. Cir 1994) for violating sections 4041 and 4081 for excise taxes on petroleum products.

      IRC 7201 and 7202 were used for admission tax violations in US v Nigro, 262 F2d 783, and US v H.J.K. Theatre, 236 F2d 502.

      IRC 7201 and 7202 were used in Reynolds v US, 288 F2d 78 (1961) in connection with the selling of bolita tickets.

      IRC 7206 was used in violations of sections 4261 and 4291 for air transportation taxes in US v Nielsen, 1 F3d 855 (9th. Cir. 1993).

      IRC 7203 was used for a sugar tax violation in Call v US, 265 F2d 167.
      IRC 7207 was used for an estate tax violation in US v Alker, 254 F2d 292.
      IRC 7206 was used for a marijuana tax violation in US v Alvere, 470 F2d 981.
      IRC 7206 was used for concealing property from levy in US v Bergman, 306 F2d 653.

      This list is not exhaustive.

      It is manifestly obvious that the legal duty for each of the cases listed above was not found in Chapter 75. It is equally obvious that if Chapter 75 provisions do not identify the legal duty in the listed cases, neither can they identify a legal duty for an income tax issue.


      Item 3). The defendant was not prejudiced by failure to cite 26 USC #6012 in the indictment

      The Vroman court along with other circuits and prosecutors have gone outside of the indictment and volunteered numerous additional statutes claimed to not be necessary. Since the original indictment does not identify a known legal duty, the practice is an attempt to put a putative charge in an invalid indictment. Ex Parte Bain, 121 US 1 (1887) rejected that precise action. The practice further evidences the original indictment contained voids of putative applicable statutes.

      It is well determined that courts or prosecutors are not at leisure to add charges to indictments. "A cryptic form of indictment in cases of this kind requires the defendant to go to trial with the chief issue undefined. It enables his conviction to rest on one point [law] and the affirmance of the conviction to rest on another. It gives the prosecution free hand on appeal to fill in the gaps of proof [law] by surmise or conjecture. The Court has had occasion before now to condemn just such a practice." Russell v United States, 369 US 749, 766. citations omitted; Rabe v Washington, 405 US 313 (1972).

      And again: "If it lies within the province of a court to change the charging part of an indictment to suit its own notions of what it ought to have been, or what the grand jury would probably have made it if their attention had been called to suggested changes, the great importance which the common law attaches to an indictment by a grand jury, as a prerequisite to a prisoner's trial for a crime, and without which the Constitution says `no person shall be held to answer,' may be frittered away until its value is almost destroyed…(this court's unanimous opinion has been) that a court cannot permit a defendant to be tried on charges that are not made in the indictment against him." US v Miller, 471 US 130, 142-143 (1985) internal citations omitted.

      But the Vroman court explains: "Correct citation to the relevant statute, though always desirable, is not fatal if omitted." and also "errors in the citation or its omission shall not be grounds for dismissal of the indictment or reversal of the conviction if the error did not mislead the defendant to his prejudice."
      There are several items that should be considered. One, by what authority does the Vroman court make the statement that omission of a statutory duty alleged is not a fatal error in an indictment ?? The defendant finds NO support for that conclusion outside of recent income tax prosecutions. In fact, it is directly in conflict with Ex Parte Bain, 121 US 1, 13-14 (1887) and Stirone v US, 361 US 212 (1960).
      Revenue collection by the Federal government is not exempt from Due Process requirements. Boyd v US, 116 US 616. In US v Carroll, 345 US 457 (1953), the court dismissed the indictment that was not supported by a clear application of the alleged revenue statute: "(E)very citizen is entitled to fair warning of the traps which the criminal law lays." id p. 460. [FRCrP 7(c)(3) will be considered later.]

      Second, the Vroman court is considering an indictment where the erroneously cited statutory duty is a slight variance. The status of prejudice as an issue relevant to an indictment without any identified offense has been declared a non sequitur. Harris v US, 149 F3d 1304, 1308 (11th. Cir 1998); Kelly v US, 29 F3d 1107, 1113-1114 (7th. Cir. 1994).

      When faced with an indictment issued by a grand jury that did not allege a crime, but had been modified by the trial court to identify a crime, the Supreme court established a fundamental premise: "It is of no avail, under such circumstances, to say that the court still has jurisdiction of the person and of the crime for, though it has possession of the person, and would have jurisdiction of the crime, if it were properly presented by indictment, the jurisdiction of the offense is gone, and the court has no right to proceed any further in the progress of the case for want of an indictment. If there is nothing before the court which the prisoner, in the language of the Constitution, can be held to answer, he is then entitled to be discharged so far as the offense originally presented to the court by the indictment is concerned. The power of the court to proceed to try the prisoner is as much arrested as if the indictment had been dismissed or a nolle prosequi had been entered. There was nothing before the court on which it could hear evidence or pronounce sentence." Ex Parte Bain, 121 US 1, 13-14 (1887).

      In Stirone v US, 361 US 212 (1960), the supreme court applied the same result for the conviction of an offense not charged in the indictment. "If (the defendant) was convicted of a charge the grand jury never made against him, (it) was fatal error." id 217-219 .

      The Supreme Court nullified the conviction of a crime that was not charged in the indictment. "No principle of procedural due process is more clearly established than that notice of the specific charge, and a chance to be heard in a trial of the issues raised by that charge, if desired, are among the constitutional rights of every accused in a criminal proceeding in all courts, state or federal. If, as the State Supreme Court held, petitioners were charged with a violation of 1 [and convicted of 2], it is doubtful both that the information fairly informed them of that charge and that they sought to defend themselves against such a charge; it is certain that they were not tried for or found guilty of it. It is as much a violation of due process to send an accused to prison following conviction of a charge on which he was never tried as it would be to convict him upon a charge that was never made." Cole v Arkansas, 333 US 196, 201 (1947).

      "It is well settled that (even) the entry of a guilty plea does not act as a waiver of jurisdictional defects such as an indictment's failure to charge an offense and the defendant may raise such failure at ANY time (including habeas corpus)" US v White, 258 F3d 374, 379 (5th. Cir 2001), emphasis in original.


      ITEM 4) FRCrP 7(c)(3) condones an indictment that alleges a wrong statute.
      Vroman considers FRCrP 7(c)(3) [herein after the Rule] only as it applies to prejudice from an erroneous cited statutory citation. That premise is not challenged.

      It is submitted the instant indictment has been shown to be void of any statutory established legal duty. Prejudice has been discussed above and is submitted to be inapplicable. The Rule, as written, also addresses and supports an indictment that is void of any identified legal duty and will be analyzed to that effect for the instant indictment.

      FRCrP 7(c)(3) reads: "Unless the defendant was misled and thereby prejudiced, neither an error in a citation nor a citation's omission is a ground to dismiss the indictment or information or to reverse a conviction."

      By any objective reading, the Rule supports an indictment without any citation of a statutory duty or a known legal duty. The committee that formulated the Rule for Congressional approval relied upon US v Hutcheson, 312 US 219 (1941) and Williams v US, 168 US 382 (1897) to contend the cases established that provision. That was a misrepresentation. Both cases involved erroneous cited statutory duties.

      US v Hutcheson, 312 US 219 (1941) stated: "In order to determine whether an indictment charges an offense against the United States, designation by the pleader of the statute under which he purported to lay the charge is immaterial. He may have conceived the charge under one statute which would not sustain the indictment but it may nevertheless come within the terms of another statute. (A statute other than the one cited) may draw the sting of criminality from the allegations." id. 229.

      In Williams v US, 168 US 382 (1897), the court declared: "It is wholly immaterial what statute was in the mind of the district attorney when he drew the indictment, if the charges made are embraced by some statute in force…We must look to the indictment itself, and, IF IT PROPERLY CHARGES AN OFFENSE under the laws of the United States, that is sufficient to sustain it, although the representative of the United States may have supposed that the offense charged was covered by a different statute." id 389, emphasis added.

      The Rule is a negation of an 800 year old fundamental right which has been enshrined within our constitution. The Rule's destruction of our Right to be confronted with the law alleged to have been violated is in direct conflict with clear and unambiguous adjudication of the Supreme court quoted herein. It is an unacceptable method to amend the constitution and must be declared void.

      As declared in Vroman, circuit precedent is not controlling where prior panel did not consider an argument the later panel finds persuasive. US v Faulkner, 952 F2d 1066, 1071 n.3 (9th. Cir 1991).


      OVERVIEW
      Let us not be mislead. The lack of a known legal duty within the indictment is not an accidental oversight. It is a deliberate strategy that has been in place within the IRS for decades. Section One of the 1939 IRC Code addressed "every individual." The 1954 rewriting addressed anyone with "taxable income." Anyone using the tabulated amounts invoked the implication they had taxable income.

      It is well established a tax agency pursuing tax litigation has the burden of proof to not only evidence the statute that imposes the tax, but due process also requires the agency to submit it to contestation and to carry the burden of proof as to its validity. Speiser v Randall, 357 US 513, 529 (1958); Spreckles Sugar v McClain, 192 US 397. If the agency can avoid identifying putative authority for the tax, any challenge to the tax by the defendant inherently reverses the burden of proof. The court will require the defendant to prove there is no possible way the tax might be valid. That burden of proof is impossible to meet. The placement of the burden of proof may be decisive of the outcome. Cities Service Oil Co. v Dunlap, 308 US 208.


      SUMMARY

      A generic statute such as 7201 or 7203 cannot identify a known legal duty nor has it ever been so applied in numerous cases involving taxes other than income tax cases. The event that would impose the status of taxpayer on the defendant (an essential element) has never been alleged and put into contestation. Prejudice is an irrelevant consideration for an indictment that does not identify an offense. FRCrP 7(c)(3) as written to permit an indictment without a crime alleged is in conflict with fundamental constitutional Due Process and must be declared null and void.

      Without a charge in the indictment, the court has no authority to proceed and must dismiss the indictment.


      DISCLAIMER: Let nothing written herein, or hereafter verbally presented to the court, be construed or implied that the defendant is making any challenge to the unidentified tax which might allow the court to reverse the burden of proof imposed upon the movant by Due Process.


      John Doe, address, phone number , date Notice of service…
    • jazz742917
      The IRC does not impose an income tax. The 16th amendment imposes an income tax. The IRC is administrative. The cited paragraph confuses tax authority with
      Message 2 of 28 , Sep 14, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        The IRC does not impose an income tax. The 16th amendment imposes an income tax. The IRC is administrative. The cited paragraph confuses tax authority with tax administration. I wouldn't bother to read any further when the author misses something that fundamental.

        ~SquidBilly



        <quote on>
        >Indictments typically rely upon IRC 7201 or 7203 as imposing an income >tax and make numerous conclusions of law. Because of the similarity, >an appellate court Opinion will be examined as representative of the >grounds this court might use to dismiss a challenge to the instant >indictment.
        <quote off>
      • mn_chicago
        ... I wouldn t bother to read any further when the author misses something that fundamental. ... If you have the clarity you believe is lacking, instead of
        Message 3 of 28 , Sep 14, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "jazz742917" <jazzmojoguard-notsohappy@...> wrote:

          I wouldn't bother to read any further when the author misses something that fundamental.
          >
          > ~SquidBilly


          If you have the clarity you believe is lacking, instead of casting
          doubts and suggesting the source is questionable, and given how the
          courts will muddle everything in any way to support the IRS, why not
          give a more constructive point of view that would be of the caliber
          of benefit you found lacking in the content, if, in fact, you
          bothered to read it.

          We ain't perfect, but we try to benefit others with input,
          however flawed, if given in earnest as a best effort from what
          one knows and/or experiences.

          Let me change that that for I cannot speak for others:

          I ain't perfect, but I try and share for the benefit of
          others, however flawed my input may be, for it is given
          in earnest and intent based on what I may know and have
          experienced.

          Cheers,

          mn
        • Bob Conlon
          WRONG Squid!!!  The 16th amendment DOES NOT impose taxes on anything!  The 16th amendment only gives CONGRESS the power to lay and collect taxes on
          Message 4 of 28 , Sep 14, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            WRONG Squid!!!  The 16th amendment DOES NOT impose taxes on anything!  The 16th amendment only gives CONGRESS the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes!  Congress has done so via the IRC at sections 3402/3403 of Title 26 In Subtitle C, 'income taxes collected at source'  and makes the employer liable, not the employee!  Most private sector employees are not liable for income tax!   Title 4 Section 111 subjects the federal government, (and its employees)  to income taxation!   The Feds are pulling a fast one on us and have been doing so for 65 years, ever since 'victory tax' withholding during the WWII. 

            --- On Mon, 9/14/09, jazz742917 <jazzmojoguard-notsohappy@...> wrote:

            From: jazz742917 <jazzmojoguard-notsohappy@...>
            Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Re: MOTION TO DISMISS INCOME TAX INDICTMENT-- Rebuttal of US v Vroman, 975 F2d 669
            To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
            Date: Monday, September 14, 2009, 12:12 PM

             
            The IRC does not impose an income tax. The 16th amendment imposes an income tax. The IRC is administrative. The cited paragraph confuses tax authority with tax administration. I wouldn't bother to read any further when the author misses something that fundamental.

            ~SquidBilly

            <quote on>
            >Indictments typically rely upon IRC 7201 or 7203 as imposing an income >tax and make numerous conclusions of law. Because of the similarity, >an appellate court Opinion will be examined as representative of the >grounds this court might use to dismiss a challenge to the instant >indictment.
            <quote off>


          • mn_chicago
            Monday Evening 14 September 2009 Okay, now I have read the post and found it to be filled with excellent information, and parts of it can be used effectively
            Message 5 of 28 , Sep 14, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              Monday Evening 14 September 2009

              Okay, now I have read the post and found it to
              be filled with excellent information, and parts
              of it can be used effectively in other types of
              cases, as well.

              In fact, I am gong to look into the one where the
              judge that dismissed my challenge, in the form of
              a demurrer, to a traffic stop. She admitted it was
              the strongest presentation she had ever seen in a
              traffic case, but she cited a bogus reason for making
              a guilty determination, and she knew I knew when I
              stared back at her. She even corrected the Asst State's
              atty on a few occasions, in my favor, because he
              was unable to follow what was happening.

              Great orginal post, and excellent information!

              Cheers!

              mn
            • vze4bqdp@optonline.net
              ... This isn t correct, either! It is true that the 16th Amendment does not impose an Income tax, however congress has always had the power to tax just about
              Message 6 of 28 , Sep 14, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                At 09-0914 17:25, you wrote:


                >WRONG Squid!!! The 16th amendment DOES NOT impose taxes on anything! The
                >16th amendment only gives CONGRESS the power to lay and collect taxes on
                >incomes! Congress has done so via the IRC at sections 3402/3403 of Title
                >26 In Subtitle C, 'income taxes collected at source' and makes the
                >employer liable, not the employee! Most private sector employees are not
                >liable for income tax! Title 4 Section 111 subjects the federal
                >government, (and its employees) to income taxation! The Feds are
                >pulling a fast one on us and have been doing so for 65 years, ever since
                >'victory tax' withholding during the WWII.

                This isn't correct, either!

                It is true that the 16th Amendment does not impose an Income tax, however
                congress has always had the power to tax just about anything it wishes. The
                16th amendment simply removes the apportionment requirement from income
                taxation without altering the fundamental constitutional requirement that
                direct taxes be apportioned. The early courts resolved that conflict by
                redefining the term "income" in such a way as to categorize it as an
                indirect tax. Thus, "wages, rents, royalties, etc. did not come within the
                definition of "income".

                Subtitle C of title 26 addresses "employment tax" not "Income tax". The
                sections mentioned address withholding, not taxing. Employer liability for
                the tax does not mean that an employer is made to pay what the employee
                does not, although the IRS seems to enjoy and exploit the confusion.
                Employer liability extends only to money withheld by the employer at the
                employee's request for transfer to the IRS for tax purposes.

                Parenthetically, this last point applies also to states administering sales
                tax laws where vendors are invited to believe that they are liable for the
                sales tax they fail to collect. If they have been granted permission to
                collect the tax, they may be presumed to have collected it and
                administratively liable in that sense only. A vendor that has never applied
                for such permission, on the other hand, is legally prohibited from
                collecting a sales tax at all; he would have no liability at all. Notice
                that authority to collect a sales tax is dependent upon the vendor
                successfully applying for the privilege. I do know this to be true in the
                few states I am familiar with, and I can't imagine any alternative
                rationale that would hold up legally. Still, with 50 separate state
                jurisdictions, I always try to be prepared for surprises.
              • Robert Parker
                ... I believe you are slightly off here as the 16th Amendment merely states that a tax on income is a direct tax by simply stating that apportionment does not
                Message 7 of 28 , Sep 15, 2009
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Sep 15, 2009, at 12:43 AM, vze4bqdp@... wrote:

                  > At 09-0914 17:25, you wrote:
                  >
                  > >WRONG Squid!!! The 16th amendment DOES NOT impose taxes on
                  > anything! The
                  > >16th amendment only gives CONGRESS the power to lay and collect
                  > taxes on
                  > >incomes! Congress has done so via the IRC at sections 3402/3403 of
                  > Title
                  > >26 In Subtitle C, 'income taxes collected at source' and makes the
                  > >employer liable, not the employee! Most private sector employees
                  > are not
                  > >liable for income tax! Title 4 Section 111 subjects the federal
                  > >government, (and its employees) to income taxation! The Feds are
                  > >pulling a fast one on us and have been doing so for 65 years, ever
                  > since
                  > >'victory tax' withholding during the WWII.
                  >
                  > This isn't correct, either!
                  >
                  > It is true that the 16th Amendment does not impose an Income tax,
                  > however
                  > congress has always had the power to tax just about anything it
                  > wishes. The
                  > 16th amendment simply removes the apportionment requirement from
                  > income
                  > taxation without altering the fundamental constitutional requirement
                  > that
                  > direct taxes be apportioned. The early courts resolved that conflict
                  > by
                  > redefining the term "income" in such a way as to categorize it as an
                  > indirect tax. Thus, "wages, rents, royalties, etc. did not come
                  > within the
                  > definition of "income".
                  >




                  I believe you are slightly off here as the 16th Amendment merely
                  states that a tax on income is a direct tax by simply stating that
                  apportionment does not apply. The 16th gave Congress no new taxation
                  authority that they did not have before it was ratified. The
                  apportionment provision of the Constitution is in full effect on all
                  direct taxes.





                  >
                  >



                  >
                • BOB GREGORY
                  WHAT??? The 16th Amendment nowhere says that a tax on income is a direct tax by simply stating that apportionment does not apply. Since it did not do away
                  Message 8 of 28 , Sep 15, 2009
                  • 0 Attachment


                    WHAT???  The 16th Amendment nowhere says that "a tax on income is a direct tax by simply stating that
                    apportionment does not apply."   Since it did not do away any provisions of the basic Constitution, it could not simply state that apportionment does not apply to a direct tax.  Here is what the Brushaber court said about that:  “… the contentions under it (the 16th Amendment), if acceded to, would cause one provision of the Constitution to destroy another; that is, they would result in bringing the provisions of the Amendment exempting a direct tax from apportionment into irreconcilable conflict with the general requirement that all direct taxes be apportioned. … This result, instead of simplifying the situation and making clear the limitations on the taxing power … would create radical and destructive changes in our constitutional system and multiply confusion.”

                    The main idea of the 16th was to make taxable income derived from a source (property, specifically) that was not taxable except directly.  The Supreme Court has ruled that the income tax is an EXCISE tax.  It also ruled that the 16th did not give Congress any new powers of taxation nor did it extend taxation to any new subjects of taxation.  There is a fair amolunt of confusion because several of the significant cases about income tax relate to the corporate income tax.  The court has ruled that the tax is not ON the income but that the income is used as a measure of a privilege tax to determine how much excise (privilege) tax a corporation must pay.  The court said that the corporate income tax "is not in any sense a tax on property or a tax on income merely as income." 

                    In TAFT v. BOWERS, 278 U.S. 470, 481 (1929) the court ruled:
                    “Under former decisions here the settled doctrine is that the Sixteenth Amendment confers no power upon Congress to define and tax as income without apportionment something which theretofore could not have been properly regarded as income.”

                    In the Brushaber decision the court said:
                     
                    “…the whole purpose of the Amendment was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from apportionment from a consideration of the source…”

                    With regard to the meaning of "income" in that part of the tax code relating to individual income tax, the court, in   , rule this:  "...there would seem to be no room to doubt that the word must be given the same meaning in all the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act, and that what that meaning is has now become definitely settled by decisions of this Court.”  So this means that income is "gain" or "profit" and that it is not taxable or taxed but only used as a measure for how to apply a privilege tax.

                    Since the income tax is an excise, it must be based on a a privileged status or activity.  A corporation can be taxed because the government grants charters to corporations.  Certain occupations that depend on licenses granted by the government may be taxed.  Government employees may be taxed because working for the government is a privilege that only the government can grant.  Residents of federal enclaves or territories may be taxed because they are under the direct jurisciction of the federal government.  Ordinary people living and working in one of the several states for a private company have not been granted any privilege, have no federal connection and cannot legally be taxed, but they are victims of a huge scam.  That is the basic truth of the matter, though there are a few other pertinent points relating to the Buck Act, the Public Salary Tax Act, the Administrative Procedures Act, etc.   The Paperwork Reduction Act does not relate to tax liability, but its misuse by the IRS provides a clue to the scam.

                    Bob Gregory

                    =================



                    Robert Parker wrote:
                     

                    On Sep 15, 2009, at 12:43 AM, vze4bqdp@optonline. net wrote:

                    > At 09-0914 17:25, you wrote:
                    >
                    > >WRONG Squid!!! The 16th amendment DOES NOT impose taxes on
                    > anything! The
                    > >16th amendment only gives CONGRESS the power to lay and collect
                    > taxes on
                    > >incomes! Congress has done so via the IRC at sections 3402/3403 of
                    > Title
                    > >26 In Subtitle C, 'income taxes collected at source' and makes the
                    > >employer liable, not the employee! Most private sector employees
                    > are not
                    > >liable for income tax! Title 4 Section 111 subjects the federal
                    > >government, (and its employees) to income taxation! The Feds are
                    > >pulling a fast one on us and have been doing so for 65 years, ever
                    > since
                    > >'victory tax' withholding during the WWII.
                    >
                    > This isn't correct, either!
                    >
                    > It is true that the 16th Amendment does not impose an Income tax,
                    > however
                    > congress has always had the power to tax just about anything it
                    > wishes. The
                    > 16th amendment simply removes the apportionment requirement from
                    > income
                    > taxation without altering the fundamental constitutional requirement
                    > that
                    > direct taxes be apportioned. The early courts resolved that conflict
                    > by
                    > redefining the term "income" in such a way as to categorize it as an
                    > indirect tax. Thus, "wages, rents, royalties, etc. did not come
                    > within the
                    > definition of "income".
                    >

                    I believe you are slightly off here as the 16th Amendment merely
                    states that a tax on income is a direct tax by simply stating that
                    apportionment does not apply. The 16th gave Congress no new taxation
                    authority that they did not have before it was ratified. The
                    apportionment provision of the Constitution is in full effect on all
                    direct taxes.

                    >


                  • Bob Conlon
                    Supreme court says employer is liable... does NOT say employee is liable!   Subtitle C is the ONLY section of code in Title 26 that establishes liability for
                    Message 9 of 28 , Sep 16, 2009
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Supreme court says employer is liable... does NOT say employee is liable!
                       
                      Subtitle C is the ONLY section of code in Title 26 that establishes liability for income tax withheld, based on tables in chapter 1.  For proof, do this:
                       
                      1. go to http://uscode.house.gov
                      2. Click on 'Search the code'
                      3. In the 'search word(s)box, put "income tax collected at source"
                         using quotes.  Hit enter to search all 50 Titles.
                       
                      In doing so, you'll only get 3 hits and only one establishes who must withhold.  That would be section 3402.   Click on that. read it.  Go to the top of code and click on the blue arrow.  That will take you to section 3403.  THAT SECTION IS THE ONLY SECTION IN ALL 50 TITLES THAT ESTABLISHES LIABILITY FOR INCOME TAX WITHHELD!  Employment tax withholding is 3101/3102.
                       
                      The employer is liable for income tax withheld, not the employee. 
                       
                      Supreme court agrees:
                       
                      “An employer who fails to pay taxes withheld from its employees' wages is, of course, liable for the taxes which should have been paid, §§ 3102(b) and 3403”
                      U.S. Supreme Court Case - SLODOV V UNITED STATES  436 U.S. 238  - http://www.altlaw.org/v1/cases/407901
                       
                      10th Cir agrees:
                      “The employer is liable for the withheld portion of the employees' payroll taxes and must pay over the full amount to the government each quarter. 26 U.S.C. §3403.1  “       United States vs. Farr, 10th Cir. August 2008    http://www.altlaw.org/v1/cases/1667396
                       
                      Without liability there can be no tax due and owing.
                       
                      United States v. Tommy K. Cryer No. 06-50164-01 Western Dist of Louisiana Shreveport Division  
                      http://www.truthattack.org/jml/images/stories/PDF/cryer_MEMORANDUM.pdf
                       
                      Federal government employees are however, LIABLE FOR INCOME TAX!
                       
                      See Title 4 Section 111 of the U.S.C.
                      http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/search/display.html?terms=111&url=/uscode/html/uscode04/usc_sec_04_00000111----000-.html
                       
                      Let government employees pay for big government since they are the ones that profit from it.
                       
                      END THE FRAUD ON PRIVATE SECTOR EMPLOYEES!  Vote the bums out that let this fraud continue!

                      >WRONG Squid!!! The 16th amendment DOES NOT impose taxes on anything! The
                      >16th amendment only gives CONGRESS the power to lay and collect taxes on
                      >incomes! Congress has done so via the IRC at sections 3402/3403 of Title
                      >26 In Subtitle C, 'income taxes collected at source' and makes the
                      >employer liable, not the employee! Most private sector employees are not
                      >liable for income tax! Title 4 Section 111 subjects the federal
                      >government, (and its employees) to income taxation! The Feds are
                      >pulling a fast one on us and have been doing so for 65 years, ever since
                      >'victory tax' withholding during the WWII.
                    • rebel382003
                      The readers have been distracted by SquidBilly. Billy is distressed about an income tax. The Motion is not about the income tax. The Motion is about the
                      Message 10 of 28 , Sep 16, 2009
                      • 0 Attachment
                        The readers have been distracted by SquidBilly.

                        Billy is distressed about an income tax.

                        The Motion is not about the income tax. The Motion is about the validity of an indictment. Specifically, "Are the indictments (as used by the IRS for the past 50 years)valid indictments ?

                        A valid indictment must allege a crime. Ex Parte Bain. Does a citation of IRC 7201 or 7203, as consistently used by the IRS/ DOJ identify a "known legal duty" as mandated by the Cheek court ??

                        But you would want to read the Motion before you answer that question.

                        Reb
                      • Dave
                        My understanding of several US Supreme Court rulings is that the 16th Amendment made no changes at all, including the removal of any apportionment requirement,
                        Message 11 of 28 , Sep 18, 2009
                        • 0 Attachment
                          My understanding of several US Supreme Court rulings is that the 16th Amendment made no changes at all, including the removal of any apportionment requirement, only clarifications like it is truly an indirect tax and income may be taxed but not sources of income. Am I missing something?

                          Dave

                          --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, vze4bqdp@... wrote:

                          > This isn't correct, either!
                          >
                          > It is true that the 16th Amendment does not impose an Income tax, however congress has always had the power to tax just about anything it wishes. The 16th amendment simply removes the apportionment requirement from income taxation without altering the fundamental constitutional requirement that direct taxes be apportioned. The early courts resolved that conflict by redefining the term "income" in such a way as to categorize it as an indirect tax. Thus, "wages, rents, royalties, etc. did not come within the definition of "income".
                        • Cliff Bass
                          The problem I believe  is, if the income tax is an excise tax it must be uniform.  And it is definitely not as there are tax brackets.  Is the tax on
                          Message 12 of 28 , Sep 18, 2009
                          • 0 Attachment
                            The problem I believe  is, if the income tax is an excise tax it must be uniform.  And it is definitely not as there are tax brackets.  Is the tax on Budwieser the same as Sam Adams?  Yes.  So the tax on beer is uniform. 

                            Todays income tax is neither lawful and questionably legal.

                            It is a misapplied tax upon most people's remuneration because there is no delegated authority by Congress for the Agency, the IRS, to do that. 

                            Ralph Winterrowd has clearly shown that.  All the people fight the IRS because they, the IRS, are using code sections and Treasury Decisions (TDs which do not have the force and effect of law and do not comply with the APA or the requirements of the Federal Register). And not the substantive regulations prescribed by the Secretary as Congress authorized in the statute, 26 USC 7805. 

                            There is no known violation of a duty, a statute or substantive regulation to pay an income tax by most people because there cannot be because it would be outside of the Constitutional fence. 

                            I have studied the tax system for many years and it appears that some people are leading us astray.  Hoping the red herring bait keeps the suckers biting.

                            Something stinks in Denmark.

                            --- On Fri, 9/18/09, Dave <dminer@...> wrote:

                            From: Dave <dminer@...>
                            Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Re: MOTION TO DISMISS INCOME TAX INDICTMENT-- Rebuttal of US v Vroman, 975 F2d 669
                            To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                            Date: Friday, September 18, 2009, 3:58 AM

                             

                            My understanding of several US Supreme Court rulings is that the 16th Amendment made no changes at all, including the removal of any apportionment requirement, only clarifications like it is truly an indirect tax and income may be taxed but not sources of income. Am I missing something?

                            Dave

                            --- In tips_and_tricks@ yahoogroups. com, vze4bqdp@... wrote:

                            > This isn't correct, either!
                            >
                            > It is true that the 16th Amendment does not impose an Income tax, however congress has always had the power to tax just about anything it wishes. The 16th amendment simply removes the apportionment requirement from income taxation without altering the fundamental constitutional requirement that direct taxes be apportioned. The early courts resolved that conflict by redefining the term "income" in such a way as to categorize it as an indirect tax. Thus, "wages, rents, royalties, etc. did not come within the definition of "income".


                          • Cliff Bass
                            I forgot a few things.  Please see the attachment where it shows that the income tax is not an excise but a direct tax on the source.  There is also a lot of
                            Message 13 of 28 , Sep 18, 2009
                            I forgot a few things.  Please see the attachment where it shows that the income tax is not an excise but a direct tax on the source.  There is also a lot of other crap if you are interested.  But make it simple on yourself as  the cloud of confusion is greater than need be.  And I have been there with the shovel for a long time now.

                            --- On Fri, 9/18/09, Dave <dminer@...> wrote:

                            From: Dave <dminer@...>
                            Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Re: MOTION TO DISMISS INCOME TAX INDICTMENT-- Rebuttal of US v Vroman, 975 F2d 669
                            To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                            Date: Friday, September 18, 2009, 3:58 AM

                             

                            My understanding of several US Supreme Court rulings is that the 16th Amendment made no changes at all, including the removal of any apportionment requirement, only clarifications like it is truly an indirect tax and income may be taxed but not sources of income. Am I missing something?

                            Dave

                            --- In tips_and_tricks@ yahoogroups. com, vze4bqdp@... wrote:

                            > This isn't correct, either!
                            >
                            > It is true that the 16th Amendment does not impose an Income tax, however congress has always had the power to tax just about anything it wishes. The 16th amendment simply removes the apportionment requirement from income taxation without altering the fundamental constitutional requirement that direct taxes be apportioned. The early courts resolved that conflict by redefining the term "income" in such a way as to categorize it as an indirect tax. Thus, "wages, rents, royalties, etc. did not come within the definition of "income".


                          • BOB GREGORY
                            I sense some confusion. Maybe an example will help. Let s say the Horses R Us corporation makes money from three sources: 1. From manufacturing horseshoes. It
                            Message 14 of 28 , Sep 18, 2009
                            • 0 Attachment

                              I sense some confusion.  Maybe an example will help.

                              Let's say the Horses R Us corporation makes money from three sources:

                              1.  From manufacturing horseshoes.  It buys iron, buys coal for the forge and pays George, the blacksmith to make the horse shoes.  Then it sells the horseshoes.  The money from the sales less the cost of iron and coal and George's pay equal the profit, which is taxable as income.

                              2.  From grooming horses.  It pays Bill, the groom, to fetch water in a bucket and to wash and curry comb horses.  The money received for grooming horses less Bill's pay is profit, which is taxable as income.

                              3.  It owns a big barn and the land on which it sits.  It is used as a livery stable, and travelers who come to town for business or pleasure rent space in the barn for their horses.  The rent received, less any reasonable expenses, is profit.  But is is taxable?

                              The first source is manufacturing.  There is no question about its taxability or that it is an excise or privilege tax.

                              The second source is service.  There is no question about its taxability
                              or that it is an excise or privilege tax.

                              The third source is real estate.  A tax on real estate is a direct tax and, under the Constitution, would be subject only to an apportioned tax.  In 1895 the Supreme Court ruled (Pollock v Farmers Loan and Trust) that a tax on rents from property was the same as a tax on the property itself and thus had to be apportioned even though it was "income."

                              The 16th Amendment was drafted in 1909 (Proposed  by President Taft along with an income tax on corporations.  It is noteworthy that Taft was later Chief Justice of the Supreme Court 1921-1930 when many of the early income tax decisions were made.)   The Amendment's intent was (and is) to make income taxable without consideration of the source from which it is derived.  Thus if the source was capital stock, a dividend on it would be taxable.  If the source was cash, interest on it would be taxable.  And if the source was real property, rent from it would be taxable.

                              Read the Amendment now in light of this information:  "
                              The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

                              That is the way the 16th Amendment is supposed to work.  It does not and never did "authorize" a tax on income.  Income was always taxable.  The key question later became "What is income?" 

                              Go to sleep now, boys and girls.  We'll talk about income some other time.

                              Uncle Bob, the tax storyteller

                              =================



                              Dave wrote:
                               

                              My understanding of several US Supreme Court rulings is that the 16th Amendment made no changes at all, including the removal of any apportionment requirement, only clarifications like it is truly an indirect tax and income may be taxed but not sources of income. Am I missing something?

                              Dave


                            • dave
                              Folks: Existing in the world after the establishment of the federal or supreme courts and relying upon same is a sure way to get labeled frivolous. Oh it won t
                              Message 15 of 28 , Sep 18, 2009
                              • 0 Attachment

                                Folks:

                                 

                                Existing in the world after the establishment of the federal or supreme courts and relying upon same is a sure way to get labeled frivolous. Oh it won’t be that your argument is frivolous for it will be rooted in merit—namely an underlying declaration “I AM NOT A SLAVE.” It’s just that the WRITTEN law and ESPECIALLY those who rule on same have the same disdain for you as “aristocracy creator” George Washington did for the original patriots. You will find only GLIMPSES of freedom in the written law.

                                 

                                Its far better to remove the discussion from their plane of existence. Remove things back to START the discussion at before your detractors came into existence….and then move forward. Expect something from your detractors when you do: SILENCE. Yes…silence does speak in law and government and 99% of time, that is all you will obtain. Silence will happen because their power to act-on, define, etc. starts POST that point.

                                 

                                With that in mind, the 16th amendment really applies to the second union and not the perpetual union. The amendments alter supreme law for the territory of ‘the Constitution” and are documented in “this Constitution.” Analogy: “The constitution” of your stomach might consist of what you swallowed-up with your power.

                                 

                                Learn more by becoming a student of Ed Rivera. Its literally a LIFETIME of learning from a 34 year retired lawyer who dared tell “a little too much truth.” Literally every day you will get some nugget that will either better your education in your “shield of truth” weaponry or be directly applicable. Ed has written 35,000 well-researched words to students on these and other lawful/freedom topics just since March 2009.  Between Legal Bear’s forum and what is learned from Ed, it’s a great synergy.

                                 

                                www.edrivera.com

                                 

                                Don’t let the comments on George Washington or free-masonry dis-sway you….it’s a tool for freedom.

                                 

                                A CONCISE HISTORY OF TAXATION IN AMERICA 1789-1952 

                                Washington was a closet tax collector.  The power to tax is granted by the States of the first and perpetual Union to the Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.  The Congress of the United States, under the Articles of Confederation, has the authority in Article VIII to ask its member States to impose a direct tax to cover war and other expenses, but being a Confederacy, the United States in Congress assembled has no power or authority to impose a direct tax and as the United States in Congress assembled has no legislative power over the States of the first and perpetual Union, George Washington and the Freemasons came up with a plan to extend the Confederacy’s legislative power over the Northwest Territory to those States of the first Union and the inhabitants of the states. 

                                  

                                George Washington on April 30, 1789 takes an oral oath to be President of the United States, because on that date he cannot meet the 14 year residency eligibility of the Article II Section 1 Clause 5 Office of President.  This has been planned by the Freemasons, so that George Washington and his successor Presidents of the United States can secretly be employed by Congress and can covertly act as employees of the Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

                                 

                                The other Congress of the United States, alluded to in the first sentence of the Constitution of September 17, 1787: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives,” had the original legislative power over federal territory now to be vested in the new Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.  One of the rights of property ownership is the right and power to exercise exclusive dominion over that property.  Government owners of property must act through legislation, when such owners act in a proprietary fashion, and this is all that is happening when the Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives acts, with respect to territory owned by and ceded to the United States of America.

                                 

                                Article I Section 8 Clause 1 states that the Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, provided those taxes are connected to the long list of enumerated powers that follow and provided those taxes are “uniform throughout the United States,” meaning the territory owned by and ceded to the United States of America.

                                 

                                This is where George Washington comes in as the Tax Collector Commander in Chief.  On February 4, 1789, George Washington as elected unanimously by the Presidential Electors to be President of the United States of America an office that requires no oath.  The only oath George Washington ever takes, as a President, is the oral oath of the Office of President of the United States:

                                "I, George Washington, do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. So help me God”.

                                By taking an oral oath, George Washington becomes an employee of the Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives and the Freemasonry cabal that has taken it over. 

                                 

                                President of the United States and employee George Washington hires employee tax collectors and President of the United States of America makes some of them his agents and imbues them with a tiny bit of the sovereignty of the United States of America under the authority of the Articles of Confederation.  That sovereignty and authority is, of course, limited to the territory owned by and ceded to the United States of America.  In order for this scheme to work, it must be rumored that the Articles of Confederation have been replaced by the Constitution of September 17, 1787.  The rumor mill was so successful the demise of the Articles of Confederation is taken as fact, which have dissolved the perpetual Union it created.

                                 

                                George Washington starts the process of extending federal power beyond the territory owned by and ceded to the United States of America by rejecting the Office of President, the Article VI oath of Office “to support this Constitution,” and thereby, leaving the Constitution of September 17, 1787 un-adopted by any Officer on behalf of the United States in Congress assembled. 

                                 

                                Federal taxes, those exactions due in the territory owned by and ceded to the United States of America, are collected by the employees of Employee and President of the United States George Washington and “Officers of the United States” appointed by President of the United States of America, not bound by any oath, George Washington, and confirmed by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.

                                 

                                The first Collectors of Internal Revenue and the first Customs collectors are appointed by George Washington and the last ones are appointed by Harry Truman.  In the IRS Reorganization of 1952, the Offices of the Collector of Internal Revenue and Deputy Collector of Internal Revenue are abolished by executive order and that reorganization is codified in the Internal Revenue Code.  There are no longer tax collecting Officers of the United States, meaning persons appointed by the President of the United States of America with the advice and consent to the Senate to give legal notice and make a legal demand for payment.  Employees of government have no authority to exercise the sovereignty of government all they can do is work.  Federal employees are not public servants they are employed by the President of the United States to administer the property owned by and the territory ceded to the United States of America.  These employees cannot give a notice of a specific and certain legal duty because they lack the authority and sovereignty once possessed by the Collector of Internal Revenue, even if limited to territory owned by and ceded to the United States of America.  

                                 

                                Ever since Shakespeare wrote his plays, we have known that there was something wrong in protesting too much.  And so it is with taxation.  Understanding is everything.  Ever since the King of England was kicked out of America we have had limited government.  Unfortunately, just as soon as one despot is toppled a bunch of much cleverer ones pop up.

                                 

                                Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera

                                 

                                 

                                From: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com [mailto:tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Dave
                                Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 4:58 AM
                                To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                                Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Re: MOTION TO DISMISS INCOME TAX INDICTMENT-- Rebuttal of US v Vroman, 975 F2d 669

                                 

                                 

                                My understanding of several US Supreme Court rulings is that the 16th Amendment made no changes at all, including the removal of any apportionment requirement, only clarifications like it is truly an indirect tax and income may be taxed but not sources of income. Am I missing something?

                                Dave

                                --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, vze4bqdp@... wrote:

                                > This isn't correct, either!
                                >
                                > It is true that the 16th Amendment does not impose an Income tax, however
                                congress has always had the power to tax just about anything it wishes. The 16th amendment simply removes the apportionment requirement from income taxation without altering the fundamental constitutional requirement that direct taxes be apportioned. The early courts resolved that conflict by redefining the term "income" in such a way as to categorize it as an indirect tax. Thus, "wages, rents, royalties, etc. did not come within the definition of "income".

                                ·          

                              • spartacus
                                Parroting Patridiot Myth-Information or Disinformation Propaganda is a disservice to all Americans. Re: The problem I believe is, if the income tax is an
                                Message 16 of 28 , Sep 19, 2009
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Parroting Patridiot Myth-Information or Disinformation Propaganda is a disservice to all Americans.

                                  Re: "The problem I believe is, if the income tax is an excise tax it must be uniform. And it is definitely not as there are tax brackets. Is the tax on Budwieser the same as Sam Adams? Yes. So the tax on beer is uniform.


                                  A Clear Example of post absurdum hoc, ergo asininum hoc (i.e. Useless B.S. theory!)

                                  Question to FACT: Are the "tax brackets" nevertheless applied "uniformly"?

                                  Answer to FACT: Yes!

                                  Ergo, any argument/s to the contrary equates to Waste of TIME B.S.!

                                  Re: "Today(')s income tax is neither lawful and questionably legal."


                                  Keep Flying That Asinine "Crash & Burn" Argument! See where it lands you!

                                  Re: "It is a misapplied tax upon most people's remuneration because there is no delegated authority by Congress for the Agency, the IRS, to do that."


                                  Mere Opinion/s do Not Equate to Fact/s!

                                  First of all, the "IRS" is a "bureau" (ie bureaucracy) which exists under/ within the Office of "Commissioner of Internal Revenue" under the auspices of the Secretary of the Treasury / Treasury Dept. much like as does the "Bureau of Engraving and Printing"

                                  The Excise tax levied and measured by "Income/s" is NOT "a misapplied tax" per say, it is a legitimate tax which is nevertheless being "misapplied" due to Ignorance, and because our ignorance is indeed very Profitable to Those who are being enriched by such misapplication!

                                  Re: "Ralph Winterrowd has clearly shown that."

                                  Ralph is Clueless & BLIND, as demonstrated by his 6 IRS Losses to Date, as well as his Own ignorant statements made on his group concerning the APA!

                                  Here is a very Simple Question:

                                  Do You Want To WIN, or merely ARGUE or be Led Around by the Blind?

                                  Ignorant Patriots, like those who do not know which is the business end of a barrel, cannot help anyone much less themselves.

                                  We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.
                                  Benjamin Franklin

                                  Leviticus 19:36; Deuteronomy 25:15-16
                                  I John 4:6

                                  Wisdom is the principal thing; Therefore get wisdom. And in all your
                                  getting, Get understanding. Proverbs 4:7

                                  "vivus spartacus"
                                  All Rights Reserved
                                  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_great_debate/

                                  It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a
                                  prey to the active. The condition upon which G-d hath given liberty
                                  to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude
                                  is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his
                                  guilt. John Philpot Curran (1750–1817)

                                  Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have
                                  found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be
                                  imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted
                                  with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are
                                  prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.
                                  Frederick Douglass, "If There Is No Struggle, There Is No Progress"


                                  --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, Cliff Bass <cliff_bass@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > The problem I believe  is, if the income tax is an excise tax it must be uniform.  And it is definitely not as there are tax brackets.  Is the tax on Budwieser the same as Sam Adams?  Yes.  So the tax on beer is uniform. 
                                  <Snipped>
                                • spartacus
                                  The Operative word being Corporation Whether Horses R Us or otherwise, Corporations, unlike Citizens, do NOT have Inalienable Rights endowed upon them
                                  Message 17 of 28 , Sep 19, 2009
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    The "Operative" word being "Corporation"

                                    Whether "Horses R Us" or otherwise, Corporations, unlike Citizens, do NOT have "Inalienable Rights" endowed upon them by THEIR "creator/s"!

                                    It is a Gov't Granted/ Chartered Privilege to operate as a corporation, and it is That Privilege upon which the Excise Tax is being levied, based upon / measured by Any and All "Income (Profit/Gain) DERIVED from such "activity" / "privilege"!

                                    Re: "It (the 16th Amendment) does not and never did "authorize" a tax on income. Income was always taxable."

                                    Nice Try, but nevertheless WRONG!

                                    Whereas the 1909 Corporate Excise Tax applied to federally chartered corporations, as well as those chartered by any one of the several States which were operating either in Interstate and /or International Trade/Commerce, once ratified, the 16th Amendment allowed Congress to levy the Excise Tax upon those corporations which were merely operating Intrastate, as well as all individuals who were profiting from same, not to mention presumably provides the IRS their phony and erroneous "direct tax" argument.

                                    Re: "The key question later became "What is income?" "

                                    Such was Answered by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Eisner Case.

                                    i.e. the TERM "income" means any : "Profit/Gain DERIVED FROM the source"

                                    Now, for Those with more TIME then Sense, Happy Trails & Rabbit Holes!

                                    For all others, it would be Wise to First review Post # 16326 - 21 July 2008 herein, and then READ the Message archives at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_great_debate/ and Post any questions therein.

                                    We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.
                                    Benjamin Franklin

                                    Leviticus 19:36; Deuteronomy 25:15-16
                                    I John 4:6

                                    Wisdom is the principal thing; Therefore get wisdom. And in all your
                                    getting, Get understanding. Proverbs 4:7

                                    "vivus spartacus"
                                    All Rights Reserved


                                    It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a
                                    prey to the active. The condition upon which G-d hath given liberty
                                    to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude
                                    is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his
                                    guilt. John Philpot Curran (1750–1817)

                                    Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have
                                    found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be
                                    imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted
                                    with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are
                                    prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.
                                    Frederick Douglass, "If There Is No Struggle, There Is No Progress"
                                  • Mike
                                    There is an easier way to search both the Code and the Regulations: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode/index.html http://www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr/retrieve.html (Is
                                    Message 18 of 28 , Sep 22, 2009
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      There is an easier way to search both the Code and the Regulations:

                                      http://www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode/index.html

                                      http://www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr/retrieve.html

                                      (Is this better Bear?)
                                       
                                      IMPORTANT: The information contained in this email message is intended only for the individual/entity named herein. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by telephone and destroy all originals and copies of this message. Nothing contained within, or inferred by, this communication is to be construed to be legal, financial or tax advice. Receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient is not a waiver of any kind or work product privilege.

                                      From: Bob Conlon <bobc3591@...>
                                      To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                                      Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 5:42:21 AM
                                      Subject: [tips_and_tricks] MOTION TO DISMISS INCOME TAX INDICTMENT-- Rebuttal of US v Vroman, 975 F2d 669

                                       

                                      Supreme court says employer is liable... does NOT say employee is liable!
                                       
                                      Subtitle C is the ONLY section of code in Title 26 that establishes liability for income tax withheld, based on tables in chapter 1.  For proof, do this:
                                       
                                      1. go to http://uscode. house.gov
                                      2. Click on 'Search the code'
                                      3. In the 'search word(s)box, put "income tax collected at source"
                                         using quotes.  Hit enter to search all 50 Titles.
                                       
                                      In doing so, you'll only get 3 hits and only one establishes who must withhold.  That would be section 3402.   Click on that. read it.  Go to the top of code and click on the blue arrow.  That will take you to section 3403.  THAT SECTION IS THE ONLY SECTION IN ALL 50 TITLES THAT ESTABLISHES LIABILITY FOR INCOME TAX WITHHELD!  Employment tax withholding is 3101/3102.


















                                    • rebel382003
                                      Arguing the status of the 16th. Amendment is an exercise in futility. If attempted in a court, it allows the judge to shift the burden of proof onto the
                                      Message 19 of 28 , Sep 30, 2009
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Arguing the status of the 16th. Amendment is an exercise in futility. If attempted in a court, it allows the judge to shift the burden of proof onto the defendant to prove there is no possible way the income tax might be valid. There is no way that that can be accomplished.

                                        The Pollock court divided the income tax into two parts. The issues before the court were financial gain from rental property and from stocks which the court declared was different from a tax upon wages or revenue derived from labor. The income from rental property and stock was claimed to be a tax upon capital investments which the court considered unconstitutional. The rest of the income tax (upon wages and labor) was (upon rehearing) declared to be void because that component was intended to be a small portion of the tax which would have then become the only tax that was still valid. Congress could have reinstalled an income tax upon labor by legislation if they desired.

                                        The 16th. Amendment supposedly reversed the ruling that the tax on capital investments was unconstitutional. The Amendment has never had any effect on a tax levied upon wages and salaries, regardless of what Benson and his lawyers contend. Ref. CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS ON THE INCOME TAX by the Congressional Research Service. Discussion of the 16th. Amendment is a red herring to confuse tax resisters.

                                        The Supreme court definitively declared in South Carolina v Baker, 485 US 505 (1988) that Pollock had been effectively overruled in 1939 by Graves v New York, 306 US 466.

                                        In short, the 16th Amendment has been superfluous since 1939 and has never had any bearing on a tax upon wages or salaries.

                                        The 16th. Amendment is never alleged in any indictments as a source of authority for a tax.

                                        ***********************************
                                        *****************************************




                                        --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, Cliff Bass <cliff_bass@...> wrote:
                                        >
                                        > I forgot a few things.  Please see the attachment where it shows that the income tax is not an excise but a direct tax on the source.  There is also a lot of other crap if you are interested.  But make it simple on yourself as  the cloud of confusion is greater than need be.  And I have been there with the shovel for a long time now.
                                        >
                                      • jake_28079
                                        Not that I ve seen, rather statutes are cited, however, the 16th
                                        Message 20 of 28 , Sep 30, 2009
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          < The 16th. Amendment is never alleged in any indictments as a source of authority for a tax.>

                                          Not that I've seen, rather statutes are cited, however, the 16th is claimed as the source in some IRS publications & form-letters I've seen. In administrative procedures with the IRS you could demand they show how the 16th specifically authorizes the current income tax, but as "rebel382003" says, arguing over the 16th Amendment in court is "an exercise in futility", putting a burden of proof on you that you cannot meet.

                                          ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

                                          --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "rebel382003" <rebel382003@...> wrote:
                                          >
                                          > Arguing the status of the 16th. Amendment is an exercise in futility. If attempted in a court, it allows the judge to shift the burden of proof onto the defendant to prove there is no possible way the income tax might be valid. There is no way that that can be accomplished.
                                          >
                                        • Cliff Bass
                                          Graves v New York was concerned with the state taxing of an attorney s remuneration.  That attorney was an officer of a federal corporation.  And the state
                                          Message 21 of 28 , Oct 1, 2009
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Graves v New York was concerned with the state taxing of an attorney's remuneration.  That attorney was an officer of a federal corporation.  And the state tax was not placed upon the corporation but upon the remuneration, property, of that officer. 

                                            The Home Owners' Loan Corporation was create pursuant to § 4(a) of the Home Owners' Loan Act of 1933, 48 Stat. 128, 12 U.S.C. § 1461 et seq., which was enacted to provide emergency relief to home owners, particularly to assist them with respect to home mortgage indebtedness. The corporation, which is authorized to lend money to home owners on mortgages and to refinance home mortgage loans within the purview of the Act, is declared by § 4(a) to be an instrumentality of the United States. Its shares of stock are wholly government-owned. § 4(b). Its funds are deposited in the Treasury of the United States, and the compensation of its employees is paid by drafts upon the Treasury.



                                            So much of the burden of a nondiscriminatory general tax upon the incomes of employees of a government, state or national, as may be passed on economically to that government, through the effect of the tax on the price level of labor or materials, is but the normal incident of the organization within the same territory of two governments, each possessing the taxing power. The burden, so far as it can be said to exist or to affect the government in any indirect or incidental way, is one which the Constitution presupposes, and hence it cannot rightly be deemed to be within an implied restriction upon the taxing power of the national and state governments which the Constitution has expressly granted to one and has confirmed to the other. The immunity is not one to be implied from the Constitution, because, if allowed, it would impose to an inadmissible extent a restriction on the taxing power which the Constitution has reserved to the state governments.


                                            The governments are taxing the property of an official of another government that operates within the state's boundary.  Who cares?  The case has nothing to do with the taxing of the human being's remuneration.



                                            South Carolina v. Baker


                                            Syllabus

                                            Section 310(b)(1) of the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 removes the federal income tax exemption for interest earned on publicly offered long-term bonds (hereinafter referred to as bonds) issued by state and local governments (hereinafter referred to collectively as States) unless those bonds are issued in registered (as opposed to bearer) form. South Carolina invoked this Court's original jurisdiction, contending that § 310(b)(1) is constitutionally invalid under the Tenth Amendment and the doctrine of intergovernmental tax immunity. A Special Master was appointed. After conducting hearings and taking evidence, he concluded that § 310(b)(1) is constitutional, and recommended entering judgment for the defendant. South Carolina and the National Governors' Association (NGA), as an intervenor, filed exceptions to various factual findings of the Master and to his legal conclusions concerning their constitutional challenges.

                                             The allegations South Carolina does make -- that Congress was uninformed and chose an ineffective remedy -- do not amount to an allegation that the political process operated in a defective manner. Pp. 485 U. S. 512-513.


                                            Another dual government bickering that has no direct or indirect affects upon the human-being.  But does have direct effect upon the corporations, privileged fictions, such as  city bonds, state bonds, county bonds.

                                            --- On Wed, 9/30/09, rebel382003 <rebel382003@...> wrote:

                                            From: rebel382003 <rebel382003@...>
                                            Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Re: MOTION TO DISMISS INCOME TAX INDICTMENT-- Rebuttal of US v Vroman, 975 F2d 669
                                            To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                                            Date: Wednesday, September 30, 2009, 8:46 AM






                                             





                                            Arguing the status of the 16th. Amendment is an exercise in futility. If attempted in a court, it allows the judge to shift the burden of proof onto the defendant to prove there is no possible way the income tax might be valid. There is no way that that can be accomplished.
                                          • rebel382003
                                            The following two paragraphs have been lifted from South Carolina v Baker. They evidence Pollock was overruled in 1939. The 16th. Amendment is redundant. As
                                            Message 22 of 28 , Oct 2, 2009
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              The following two paragraphs have been lifted from South Carolina v Baker. They evidence Pollock was overruled in 1939. The 16th. Amendment is redundant. As Mr. Bass said, Pollock did not address the merits of a tax upon remuneration for labor.

                                              ***********************************************

                                              "The rationale underlying Pollock and the general immunity for government contract income has been thoroughly repudiated by modern intergovernmental immunity case law. In Graves v. New York ex rel. O'Keefe, 306 U.S. 466 (1939), the Court announced: `The theory . . . that a tax on income is legally or economically a tax on its source, is no longer tenable.' Id., at 480." FROM South Carolina v Baker, [485 U.S. 505, 520]

                                              " We thus confirm that subsequent case law has overruled the holding in Pollock that state bond interest is immune from a nondiscriminatory federal tax. We see no constitutional reason for treating persons who receive interest on government bonds differently than persons who receive income from other types of contracts with the government, and no tenable rationale for distinguishing the costs imposed on States by a tax on state bond interest from the costs imposed." FROM South Carolina v Baker, [485 U.S. 505, 525]




                                              ********************************

                                              --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, Cliff Bass <cliff_bass@...> wrote:
                                              >
                                              > Graves v New York was concerned with the state taxing of an attorney's remuneration.� That attorney was an officer of a federal corporation.� And the state tax was not placed upon the corporation but upon the remuneration, property, of that officer.�
                                              >
                                            • BOB GREGORY
                                              This approach seems to put the cart in front of the horse. The Pollock decision was rendered in 1895 and made the income tax act of 1894 invalid (though only
                                              Message 23 of 28 , Oct 3, 2009
                                              • 0 Attachment

                                                This approach seems to put the cart in front of the horse.  The Pollock decision was rendered in 1895 and made the income tax act of 1894 invalid (though only that part of the act which taxed rents from property was found unconstitutional because the source, property, can only be taxed by the federal government with apportionment).  [Note that interest and dividends are forms of income from property just as is rent from real property.]  The 16th Amendment was created to remove the link between the source and the income therefrom.  The effect of Pollock and the changes wrought by the 16th Amendment were pretty well discussed by the SCOTUS in early twentieth century cases, beginning with Brushaber.  Yet sources still have an important place in determining taxability, or else the Congress would not keep leaving language in the 1986 tax code such as is found in 26 USC 861.  Graves v. New York deals with the specific matter of taxability of income from government bonds.

                                                rebel382003 wrote:
                                                 

                                                The following two paragraphs have been lifted from South Carolina v Baker. They evidence Pollock was overruled in 1939. The 16th. Amendment is redundant. As Mr. Bass said, Pollock did not address the merits of a tax upon remuneration for labor.

                                                ************ ********* ********* ********* ********

                                                "The rationale underlying Pollock and the general immunity for government contract income has been thoroughly repudiated by modern intergovernmental immunity case law. In Graves v. New York ex rel. O'Keefe, 306 U.S. 466 (1939), the Court announced: `The theory . . . that a tax on income is legally or economically a tax on its source, is no longer tenable.' Id., at 480." FROM South Carolina v Baker, [485 U.S. 505, 520]

                                                " We thus confirm that subsequent case law has overruled the holding in Pollock that state bond interest is immune from a nondiscriminatory federal tax. We see no constitutional reason for treating persons who receive interest on government bonds differently than persons who receive income from other types of contracts with the government, and no tenable rationale for distinguishing the costs imposed on States by a tax on state bond interest from the costs imposed." FROM South Carolina v Baker, [485 U.S. 505, 525]

                                                ************ ********* ********* **

                                                --- In tips_and_tricks@ yahoogroups. com, Cliff Bass <cliff_bass@ ...> wrote:
                                                >
                                                > Graves v New York was concerned with the state taxing of an attorney's remuneration.� That attorney was an officer of a federal corporation.� And the state tax was not placed upon the corporation but upon the remuneration, property, of that officer.�
                                                >


                                              • rebel382003
                                                The IRS uses 7201 thru 7214 for income tax prosecutions as well as all other taxes. They therefore cannot identify a known legal duty for an income tax in an
                                                Message 24 of 28 , Oct 3, 2009
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  The IRS uses 7201 thru 7214 for income tax prosecutions as well as all other taxes. They therefore cannot identify a "known legal duty" for an income tax in an indictment. Other tax prosecutions additionally identify a liability (known legal duty) statute. Income tax prosecutions do not.

                                                  There is NO crime alleged in an income tax indictment.

                                                  ***************************



                                                  --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "jake_28079" <jake_28079@...> wrote:
                                                  >
                                                  > < The 16th. Amendment is never alleged in any indictments as a source of authority for a tax.>
                                                  >
                                                  > Not that I've seen, rather statutes are cited, however, the 16th is claimed as the source in some IRS publications & form-letters I've seen. In administrative procedures with the IRS you could demand they show how the 16th specifically authorizes the current income tax, but as "rebel382003" says, arguing over the 16th Amendment in court is "an exercise in futility", putting a burden of proof on you that you cannot meet.
                                                  >
                                                  > ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
                                                  >
                                                  > --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "rebel382003" <rebel382003@> wrote:
                                                  > >
                                                  > > Arguing the status of the 16th. Amendment is an exercise in futility. If attempted in a court, it allows the judge to shift the burden of proof onto the defendant to prove there is no possible way the income tax might be valid. There is no way that that can be accomplished.
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                • rebel382003
                                                  The IRS relies upon statutes 7201 thru 7214 for income tax prosecutions as well as for all other taxes. Those statutes therefore cannot identify a known legal
                                                  Message 25 of 28 , Oct 3, 2009
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    The IRS relies upon statutes 7201 thru 7214 for income tax prosecutions as well as for all other taxes. Those statutes therefore cannot identify a "known legal duty" for an income tax. A known legal duty must be alleged for a valid indictment. Ref. Cheek v US.

                                                    Other tax prosecutions (gambling taxes, fuel taxes, admissions taxes, etc.) additionally allege a liability (known legal duty) statute. Income tax prosecutions do not.

                                                    There is NO CRIME ALLEGED in an income tax indictment. They are not valid indictments.

                                                    *****************************************



                                                    --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "jake_28079" <jake_28079@...> wrote:
                                                    >
                                                    > < The 16th. Amendment is never alleged in any indictments as a source of authority for a tax.>
                                                    >
                                                    > Not that I've seen, rather statutes are cited, however, the 16th is claimed as the source in some IRS publications & form-letters I've seen. In administrative procedures with the IRS you could demand they show how the 16th specifically authorizes the current income tax, but as "rebel382003" says, arguing over the 16th Amendment in court is "an exercise in futility", putting a burden of proof on you that you cannot meet.
                                                    >
                                                    > ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
                                                    >
                                                    > --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "rebel382003" <rebel382003@> wrote:
                                                    > >
                                                    > > Arguing the status of the 16th. Amendment is an exercise in futility. If attempted in a court, it allows the judge to shift the burden of proof onto the defendant to prove there is no possible way the income tax might be valid. There is no way that that can be accomplished.
                                                    > >
                                                    >
                                                  • Don S.
                                                    Bob, Profit from the interest of a invested principal is true gain or profit. Rental is an exchange of equal value for the use of the property with no gain.
                                                    Message 26 of 28 , Oct 4, 2009
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      Bob,

                                                      Profit from the interest of a invested principal is true
                                                      gain or profit.

                                                      Rental is an exchange of equal value for the use of the property with no gain.

                                                      There may be some "profit/ gain" in rental fees, but not the entire
                                                      rent.

                                                      It is like wages for labor, it is an equal trade of money for
                                                      an equal trade of labor.

                                                      There is not gain or profit in wages for labor.








                                                      At 09:16 AM 10/3/09 -0500, you wrote:
                                                      >This approach seems to put the cart in front of the horse. The Pollock
                                                      >decision was rendered in 1895 and made the income tax act of 1894 invalid
                                                      >(though only that part of the act which taxed rents from property was
                                                      >found unconstitutional because the source, property, can only be taxed by
                                                      >the federal government with apportionment).
                                                    • rebel382003
                                                      The Pollock court consolidated three cases. Two cases involved earnings from rental property and one involving interest from bonds. The court considered the
                                                      Message 27 of 28 , Oct 4, 2009
                                                      • 0 Attachment
                                                        The Pollock court consolidated three cases. Two cases involved earnings from rental property and one involving interest from bonds. The court considered the cases as a tax levied upon capital investments ( a `source') which the court distinguished from a tax levied on remuneration from labor (another source).

                                                        This is the application of `source' as found in the 16th. Amendment.

                                                        Indictments in pursuit of income tax violations do not identify a `source' as being relevant. In fact, indictments do not even allege a crime. The SC has unequivocally declared indictments without a crime as having no standing before the court.

                                                        As analyzed in the http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tips_and_tricks/message/17162 post that initiated this thread, there is NO crime identified in any indictment/information filed in pursuit of an income tax prosecution. The indictments are bogus and have been for 40 years. An adequate Motion should get them thrown out of court. Yet there has not been one comment that has objected to the conclusion.

                                                        *******************************
                                                      • B
                                                        I think you are missing a very critical link related to TERMS vs WORDS . The term WAGES as defined by Congress relates to taxable activity. Thus one must
                                                        Message 28 of 28 , Oct 4, 2009
                                                        • 0 Attachment
                                                          I think you are missing a very critical link related to "TERMS" vs "WORDS". The term "WAGES" as defined by Congress relates to taxable activity. Thus one must understand just what "TERMS" and "WORDS" Congress, or for that matter, any legislative body uses when drafting laws. If fact, if you don't understand what the definitions that the law writer provides for the "TERMS" they use you will always keep spinning around and around with discussion points like the one I am responding to.

                                                          Try to learn the rules of statutory construction and the difference between "TERMS" and "words' and you will have half the battle won. Perhaps a quick read of this link will help you understand why most people never understand why they it appears that the laws say one thing when they in fact say just the opposite: http://www.atgpress.com/inform/tx024.htm

                                                          Happy reading...

                                                          --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "Don S." <vigilespaladin@...> wrote:
                                                          >
                                                          >
                                                          > Bob,
                                                          >
                                                          > Profit from the interest of a invested principal is true
                                                          > gain or profit.
                                                          >
                                                          > Rental is an exchange of equal value for the use of the property with no gain.
                                                          >
                                                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.