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

Re: [tips_and_tricks] Re: MOTION TO DISMISS INCOME TAX INDICTMENT-- Rebuttal of US v Vroman, 975 F2d 669

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 28 , Sep 14, 2009
    View Source
    • 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 2 of 28 , Sep 14, 2009
      View Source
      • 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 3 of 28 , Sep 14, 2009
        View Source
        • 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 4 of 28 , Sep 15, 2009
          View Source
          • 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 5 of 28 , Sep 15, 2009
            View Source
            • 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 6 of 28 , Sep 16, 2009
              View Source
              • 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 7 of 28 , Sep 16, 2009
                View Source
                • 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 8 of 28 , Sep 18, 2009
                  View Source
                  • 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 9 of 28 , Sep 18, 2009
                    View Source
                    • 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 10 of 28 , Sep 18, 2009
                      View Source
                      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 11 of 28 , Sep 18, 2009
                      View Source
                      • 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 12 of 28 , Sep 18, 2009
                        View Source
                        • 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 13 of 28 , Sep 19, 2009
                          View Source
                          • 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 14 of 28 , Sep 19, 2009
                            View Source
                            • 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 15 of 28 , Sep 22, 2009
                              View Source
                              • 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 16 of 28 , Sep 30, 2009
                                View Source
                                • 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 17 of 28 , Sep 30, 2009
                                  View Source
                                  • 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 18 of 28 , Oct 1, 2009
                                    View Source
                                    • 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 19 of 28 , Oct 2, 2009
                                      View Source
                                      • 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 20 of 28 , Oct 3, 2009
                                        View Source
                                        • 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 21 of 28 , Oct 3, 2009
                                          View Source
                                          • 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 22 of 28 , Oct 3, 2009
                                            View Source
                                            • 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 23 of 28 , Oct 4, 2009
                                              View Source
                                              • 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 24 of 28 , Oct 4, 2009
                                                View Source
                                                • 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 25 of 28 , Oct 4, 2009
                                                  View Source
                                                  • 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.