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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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.